Acevedo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 14 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We believe ‘the fair import of [the] terms’ [‘exhibit,’ ‘commercial,’ ‘assist,’ and ‘promote’ ] which constitute the gravamen of the offense of exhibition of obscenity as then proscribed by Sec. 43.23(a)(1), supra, compels the conclusion that the conduct denounced does not include that which is merely incidental to the exhibition of obscenity. To say that one who serves concessions at a drive-in theatre or one who stands in the general vicinity of the projector, absent a showing of any other activity on that one’s part, is guilty of ‘acting with intent to promote or assist the commercial exhibition’ of two obscene films is to contravene the objectives of the penal code.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Skinner v. State

2. “(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: ⅝ ⅜ * ⅜ ⅝ * (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gholson v. State