Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 563 SW2D 812 - Chance v. State

Chance v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Phillips v. State (1980), Bell v. State (1985)

25 state decisions

13019781980199020002010decided

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 Baldwin v. State · Hazel v. State · Dovalina v. State · Huggins v. State · Zachery 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Words used in a statute to define an offense need not be strictly pursued in the indictment; it is sufficient to use other words conveying the same meaning, or which include the sense of the statutory words.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “COUNSEL FOR STATE: A person acts intentionally or with intent with respect to the nature of his conduct or to the result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. Okay, knowingly, a person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly or with knowledge with respect to his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]n indictment or information must by direct and positive averments allege all the constituent elements of the offense sought to be charged. Nothing must be left to inference or intendment.”
    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.