Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 S.W.3d 849 - Ehrhardt v. State

Ehrhardt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 115th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Clewis v. State · Johnson v. State · Malik v. State · Brooks 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The requisite criminal intent can be formed after the formation of a contract. We emphasize, however, the deprivation of property cannot occur prior to the formation of the requisite intent.’’); Higginbotham v. State, 356 S.W.3d 584, 588 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d) (same). . See Tex. Penal Code § 31.01(1)(E) (requiring evidence of more than the”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “(A) creating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true; (B) failing to correct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, that the actor previously created or confirmed by words or conduct, and that the actor does not now believe to be true; (C) preventing another from acquiring information likely to affect his judgment in the transaction; [[Image here]] (E) promising performance that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction and that the actor does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed, except that failure to perform the promise in issue, without other evidence of intent or knowledge is not sufficient proof that the actor did not intend to perform or knew the promise would not be performed. 15”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a'period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; (B) to restore property only upon payment of reward or other compensation; or (C) to dispose, of property in a manner that makes recovery of the property by the owner unlikely.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.