Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 712 S.W.2d 170 - Sanchez v. State

Sanchez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2012

5 state decisions

201986199020002010decided

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 Eubanks v. State · 138 Tex. Crim. 71 - Escobar v. State · Walkovak 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[T]he State offered no evidence ... of any conduct on appellant’s part, from which it can be inferred that appellant ‘enticed’ or ‘persuaded’ Sanchez to come to his house. Even if the evidence before us is sufficient to establish that appellant knowingly ‘took’ Sanchez from her parents’ custody, the record contains no evidence of an intent on appellant’s part to interfere with the parents’ lawful custody. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant violated the terms of § 25.04.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A person commits an offense if, with the intent to interfere with the lawful custody of a child younger than 18 years, he knowingly entices, persuades or takes the child from the custody of the parent or guardian or person standing in the stead of the parent or guardian of such child.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.