Crawford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 22 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... The " putting in fear " which is referred to in the statute must, to support a conviction of robbery, be sustained by evidence of acts or conduct or words or circumstances reasonably calculated to effect that result. * * * * * * "All the authorities agree that to constitute the crime of robbery there must be violence, or intimidation of such a character as that the injured party is `put in fear.' The fear must be of such a nature as in reason and common experience is likely to induce a person to part with his property against his will. "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rucker v. State · Banks v. State

2. “Appellant contends that although some later opinions, without mention of Barton [v. State, 88 Tex.Crim. 368 , 227 S.W. 317 (Tex.Crim.App.1921)], have reverted to the Fanin holding, Barton has not been overruled and is still viable 20 and is here controlling. Even if Barton is alive and well, as appellant contends, and even if the fact situation in the instant case can be stretched to cover a creditor-debtor situation, the appellant cannot prevail. In Bass v. State, [ 206 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.Crim.App.1947)] it was written: We think that the principle involved in the Barton case does not avail one who takes not only property which he claims but other property at the same time. The appellant says he claims only $3.85, but admits taking $20. In the instant case the appellant paid the complainant’s bill of $14.40 without request. If a creditor-debtor relationship was established, the money actually taken at the time of the alleged offense was far in excess of $14.40. Still further, to eliminate any confusion in the prior holding of this court, we overrule Barton v. State. 21”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Armstrong v. State

3. “Except in a few jurisdictions, a creditor’s taking of money from his debtor to satisfy or secure the obligation, either by force or intimidation, is not regarded as robbery, the generally accepted doctrine being that the requisite animus furandi cannot exist when the property is taken under a bona fide claim of right. The rule is different however, in some jurisdictions, as to the forcible taking of property for the purpose of collecting uncertain, unliquidated damages, and such a taking will support a prosecution for robbery.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Armstrong v. State