Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 SW2D 61 - Draper v. State

Draper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
states following
November 2006
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2006

17 state decisions

1001976198019902000decided

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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Lipsett Steel Products, Inc. v. Mosley · Brown v. State · Heredia v. State · Ables 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(2) “Deception” means: (A) creating or confirming by words or conduct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, and that the actor does not believe to be true; (B) failing to correct a false impression of law or fact that is likely to affect the judgment of another in the transaction, that the actor previously created or confirmed by words or conduct, and that the actor does not now believe to be true; (3) “Deprive” means: (A) to withhold property from the owner permanently or for so extended a period of time that a major portion of the value or enjoyment of the property is lost to the owner; (4) “Effective consent” includes consent by a person legally authorized to act for the owner. Consent is not effective if: (A) induced by deception or coercion; (B) given by a person the actor knows is not legally authorized to act for the owner; Emphasis added.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It does not negate intent to deprive to say that the [owners] could have gotten their money back. As the State points out, the offense of theft has long been held to be complete when the property is obtained, if the other elements are present.””
    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.