Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2000 · most notably Curry v. State (2000), Brasfield v. State (1980)
27 state decisions
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 Burrell v. State · Reese v. State · Earl v. State · Cohen v. State · Collins 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . while in the course of committing theft of one automobile, Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($450,00) current money- of the United-States of America, hereinafter called ‘the Property’ from William T. Miller with intent to obtain and maintain control of the property, and by using and exhibiting a deadly weapon, namely a knife knowingly and intentionally threaten and place William T. Miller in fear of imminent bodily injury and death.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Watson v. State · Banks v. State“"In Glasper v. State , Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 350 , it was stated: "`Appellant further argues that since the cash register was taken after the victim fled the scene, there is not a sufficient "nexus" between the antecedent violence and the parting with the property to constitute robbery by assault. We do not agree. "`The fact that the victim was able to break, free and run for help prior to the actual taking of the cash register is of no consequence. But for the assault and consequential fleeing there would have been no relinquishment of the property. [authorities omitted]' "While the conviction in Glasper was under the old Penal Code, we find nothing in the robbery sections in the new Penal Code under which appellant was tried which would require a departure from the holding in Glasper . See V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sections 29.02 and 29.03. We find our holding in Glasper to be dispositive of appellant's contention."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Watson v. State““In a robbery prosecution it is not necessary to prove that all the property alleged was taken. Proof that any part thereof was taken is sufficient. Sirls v. State, 511 S.W.2d 55 ; Smallwood v. State, Tex.Cr.App. 464 S.W.2d 846 ; Hoover v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 390 S.W.2d 758 . While the foregoing cases were decided under the old Penal Code, we perceive no difference in this respect under the new Penal Code.” 532 S.W.2d at 629 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alfaro v. State
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.