Adams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Curry v. State (2000), Livingston v. State (1987)
140 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 American Plant Food Corporation v. State · Brasfield v. State · Drumm v. State · Jeffers v. State · Voelkel 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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The important question is whether a defendant had notice adequate to prepare his defense. The first step in answering this question is to decide whether the charging instrument failed to convey some requisite item of “notice.” If sufficient notice is given, this ends our inquiry. If not, the next step is to decide whether, in the context of the case, this had an impact on the defendant’s ability to prepare a defense and, finally, how great an impact.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walters v. State · Woods v. State“An indictment shall not be held insufficient, nor shall the trial, judgment or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of any defect of form which does not prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Flores v. State · Sanchez v. State“This Court has stated that the failure of a charging instrument to allege facts sufficient to give the defendant notice of precisely what he is charged with is a ground for an exception to the form under Articles 27.09(2), and 21.21(7), supra. American Plant Food Corp. v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). We have also stated that when a challenge to an accusation for failure to give adequate notice on which to prepare a defense is properly and timely asserted with adequate statement of the manner in which notice is deficient, “fundamental constitutional protections are invoked.” Drumm v. State, 560 S.W.2d 944 (Tex. Cr.App.1977). Such a challenge “calls for examination of the criminal accusation from the perspective of the accused.” Id. “When the defendant petitions for sufficient notice of the state’s charge by motion to quash adequately setting out the manner in which notice is deficient, the presumption of innocence coupled with his right to notice requires that he be given such notice.” Id. Moreover, Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution mandates that the notice petitioned for — information on which to prepare a defense — must come from the face of the charging instrument. [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lindley 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.