Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 SW3D 902 - Huffman v. State

Huffman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

51 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio))

Relationships

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Almanza v. State · Ngo v. State · Kitchens v. State · Ervin v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident or as close to the scene as possible; (2) immediately return to the scene of the accident if the vehicle is not stopped at the scene of the accident; and (3) remain at the scene of the accident until the operator complies with the requirements of Section 550.023.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If the focus of the offense is the result— that is, the offense is a “result of conduct” crime — then different types of results are considered to be separate offenses, but different types of conduct are not. On the other hand, if the focus of the offense is the conduct — that is, the offense is a “nature of conduct” crime — then different types of conduct are considered to be separate offenses .... If “circumstances surrounding the conduct” is the focus of the offense, then under a focus-based approach to determining separateness of offenses, different types of conduct could establish alternate methods of committing the same offense rather than different offenses, so long as the circumstances surrounding the conduct are the same.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A handy, though not definitive, rule of thumb is to look to the statutory verb defining the criminal act. That verb ... is generally the criminal act upon which all jurors must unanimously agree.”). 11 . 267 S.W.3d 902, 906 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). In Huffman, the defendant was involved in a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.