Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 464 S.W.2d 153 - Jackson v. State

Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
December 1987
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Campbell v. State · Bradley v. State · 166 Tex. Crim. 562 - McBee v. State · Zane v. State · 132 Tex. Crim. 338 - Hagan 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Likewise, we cannot conclude the evidence is sufficient to reflect that appel lant violated the condition of probation that he ‘avoid persons * * * of disreputable or harmful character.’ The State alleged this condition was violated by being in the company of Clyde McKnight on or about September 30, 1969, and the court specifically found such violation occurred on that date. Assuming the evidence is sufficient to show that McKnight was a person of disreputable or harmful character, the record does not reflect that the appellant knew McKnight bore such reputation, or that before the night of October 2, 1969, the two had ever seen each other. It would be difficult to conclude that the brief conversation the two had before the officers arrived would constitute a violation of probationary condition involved under the circumstances presented.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The possession of recently stolen property or a part thereof will justify the conclusion that the possessor thereof committed the offense of theft, but does not justify the conclusion that he fraudulently received the stolen property knowing that it was stolen and thereafter concealed it. The unexplained possession of the motor, which was a part of the recently stolen property, alone might justify the conclusion that appellant stole the car, but would not justify the conclusion that he fraudulently received and concealed it. See Marquez v. State, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 132 , 70 S.W.2d 426 .” See also Passmore v. State, 411 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.