Mankin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While the rule as to sufficiency of an indictment to advise the accused with reasonable certainty of the accusation he is called upon to meet at the trial is not applied in later decisions of this court as strictly as it once was, the common law rule that robbery is but an aggravated form of theft, and that in charging the offense or [sic] robbery, as in charging larceny or theft, a description of the property taken is essential has been uniformly applied. Wilson v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 391 , 356 S.W.2d 928 ; Holland v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 384 , 10 S.W.2d 561 , and cases cited. “The indictment which is found in the record on appeal contains no description of the corporeal personal property alleged to have been taken in the robbery. “Wilson v. State, supra, is directly in point and supports appellant’s contention that the indictment herein is fundamentally defective and the conviction thereon cannot stand.” Mankin, supra, at page 241.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Canady