Chanley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Ross v. State (1996), Seay v. State (1998)
25 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 Scott v. Rosenberg · Miller v. State · Rogers v. State · Clark v. State · Eldridge 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, the element which distinguishes the greater [offense of theft] from the lesser [offense of conversion] is whether Chanley intended to deprive the owners of the use of their vehicles permanently or for an indefinite period of time. ... We do not find any `serious evidentiary dispute' relating to Chanley's intent to deprive, and find it inconceivable that he had any intention to return either vehicle.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. MQM v. State · M.Q.M. v. State“This test hinges on whether a serious evidentiary dispute exists with respect to the element which distinguishes the greater from the lesser offense. The evidence must be such that the jury can conclude that the lesser offense was committed and the greater offense was not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smithhart v. State“An offense is an inherently lesser-inelud-ed one if all the statutory elements of the lesser offense are part of the statutory definition of the greater offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright 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.