Rabb, Richard Lee’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
21 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo))
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Hooper v. State · Patterson v. State · Swearingen v. State · Fuller 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he sufficiency of the evidence will be measured by the element that was actually pleaded . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]fter a court of appeals has found the evidence insufficient to support an appellant’s conviction for a greater-inclusive offense, in deciding whether to reform the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser-included offense, that court must answer two questions: 1) in the course of convicting the appellant of the greater offense, must the jury have necessarily found every element necessary to convict the appellant for the lesser-included offense; and 2) conducting an evidentiary sufficiency analysis as though the appellant had been convicted of the lesser-included offense at trial, is there sufficient evidence to support a conviction for that offense? If the answer to either of these questions is no, the court of appeals is not authorized to reform the judgment. But if the answers to both are yes, the court is authorized — indeed required — to avoid the “unjust” result of an outright acquittal by reforming the judgment to reflect a conviction for the lesser-included offense. Rabb, 434 S.W.3d at 620 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“knowing that an investigation was in progress, to-wit: a search, pursuant to a search warrant, [Appellant] intentionally and knowingly conceal[ed] a controlled substance, to wit: marijuana, with intent to impair its availability as evidence in the investigation.”
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.