Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 SW2D 380 - Mears v. State

Mears v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 1999

22 state decisions

150197519801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Standley v. State · Wilson v. State · 165 Tex. Crim. 326 - Price v. State · Hawkins 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"(d) Except as otherwise provided by this Act, a person commits an offense if he knowingly or intentionally delivers marihuana. "(e) Except as provided in Subsection (f) of this section, an offense under Subsection (d) of this section is a felony of the third degree. "(f) An offense under Subsection (d) is a Class B misdemeanor if the actor delivers one-fourth ounce or less without receiving remuneration."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is well established that the value of the property must be alleged if it affects penalty. 5 Branch’s Ann.P.C., 2d ed., Sec. 2674, p. 120. “In 30 Tex.Jur.2d, Indictment and Information, Sec. 38, p. 604, it is written: “ ‘An indictment or information should allege every fact which may affect the degree or kind of punishment. A prior conviction must be alleged where a higher penalty is sought by reason of such conviction; the value of property must be stated where it is made the basis of punishment; and the injury done to the owner of property must be averred where the amount of injury is an essential element in the punishment.’ (Emphasis Supplied) “In Hawkins v. State, 383 S.W.2d 416 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), this court said in a prosecution under Article 1429, Sec. 1, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.: “ ‘Without such an allegation the punishment cannot be determined.’ See also Price v. State, 165 Tex.Cr.R. 326 , 308 S.W.2d 47 (1957), and cases cited. “It is clear from what has been said that the indictment in the instant case is fundamentally defective for the failure to allege value. The indictment omits a necessary element of the offense attempted to be alleged, does not show whether it was a misdemeanor or felony, and there is no way to determine from the face of the indictment if the District Court of Lippscomb (sic) County had jurisdiction of the offense sought to be alleged. We conclude that the judgment of the conviction based thereupon is void, rather than voidable.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The failure of the indictment in the instant case to allege the amount of marihuana delivered or other allegations of remuneration so as to reflect what pun ishment was involved, whether the offense is a misdemeanor or felony, or whether the District Court had jurisdiction, renders the indictment fundmentally defective.” Wilson, supra, at 380 .”
    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.