Sutton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Boykin v. State · Hooper v. State · Penagraph v. State · Bynum 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) An employee of a public or private primary or secondary school commits an offense if the employee ... (2) holds a certificate or permit issued as provided by Subchapter B, Chapter 21, Education Code, or is a person who is required to be licensed by a state agency as provided by section 21.003(b), Education Code, and engages in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with a person the employee knows is: (A) enrolled in a public primary or secondary school in the same school district as the school at which the employee works; or (B) a student participant in an educational activity that is sponsored by a school district or a public or private primary or secondary school, if: (I) students enrolled in a public or private primary or secondary school are the primary participants in the activity; and (ii) the employee provides education services to those participants; or (3) engages in conduct described by Section 33,021, with a person described by Subdivision (1), or a person the employee knows is a person described by subdivision (2)(A) or (B), regardless of the age of that person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. The Ninth Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, 1 incorrectly interpreted section 21.12(a) of the Penal Code to require the accused to be an official employee of a particular school, rather than the school district, to be considered an “employee of a public or private primary or secondary school.” 2. The lower court abandoned the correct standard of review in holding that the jury could not reasonably infer the appellant worked at a particular school where the evidence showed he was required to supervise police activities at that school and he was known to have been physically present on campus while exercising his employment duties.”
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.