Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
225 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 225 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Curry v. State (2000), Livingston v. State (1987)
225 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 Sanabria v. United States · American Plant Food Corporation v. State · Brasfield v. State · Phillips v. State · May 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 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The general rule is that a motion to quash will be allowed if the facts sought are essential to give notice. However, unless a fact is essential, the indictment need not plead evidence relied on by the State. Smith v. State, 502 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Cameron v. State, 401 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.Cr.App.1966). Moreover, when a term is defined in the statutes, it need not be further alleged in the indictment. American Plant Food Corporation v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); May v. State, 618 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App.1981).’ [Emphasis in original]”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. King v. State · Castillo v. State“(T)he general rule (is) that, subject to rare exceptions, an indictment which tracks the words of the penal statute in question is legally sufficient.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hutto v. State · Solis v. State“[a]n indictment shall be deemed sufficient which charges the commission of the offense in ordinary and concise language in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is meant, and with that degree of certainty that will give the defendant notice of the particular offense with which he is charged, and enable the court, on conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. King v. State · Ferguson 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.