Musgrave v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 state decisions

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly operates another’s boat, airplane, or motor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner. (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gardner v. State · Thomas v. State

2. “Any evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provision of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States shall be disregarded by the Jury. A person commits the offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle if he intentionally or knowingly operates another’s motor-propelled vehicle without the effective consent of the owner. Now, before you consider the testimony of the State’s witnesses concerning the methamphetamine taken from Robert Hugh Faglie you must first find beyond a reasonable doubt from the testimony of [the undercover police officers] concerning their observations on February 4, 1985, their confidential informant’s information and the information they had previously received about the stolen car, that [the officers] had probable cause to believe and did believe that Robert Hugh Faglie was committing the felony offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in their presence, and if you do not so find beyond a reasonable doubt, you will disregard such evidence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Faglie v. State

3. “In the instant case, the State’s evidence showed that on July 25, 1976, the appellant, a person, was stopped by the police while operating a motor-propelled vehicle, a 1966 Chevrolet, which had been stolen two days earlier. Paul Merritt, the lawful owner of the automobile, testified he had not given his consent to appellant to use his automobile. At the time of his arrest, appellant was in possession of five Chevrolet master ignition keys and a switchblade knife and told the arresting officer, “There’s nothing you can do to help me, I’m going back to the penitentiary.” He told the officer he had obtained the car from a “Cliff,” but did not know or refused to give Cliff’s last name and refused to take the officer back to the apartment where Cliff supposedly was in the apartment complex the appellant had just left. He was described as being uncooperative.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Gardner v. State