Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 713 SW2D 396 - Hare v. State

Hare v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2003
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 112th Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Pass v. State · Preston 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the instrumentality alleged in this indictment, an automobile, is not susceptible to widely varied manners of use in an intentionally assaultive manner such as to preclude preparation of a defense. The only common sense meaning of the indictment is that the vehicle was intentionally or knowingly driven in an as-saultive manner threatening imminent serious bodily injury or death to the complainant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[(Intentionally and knowingly threaten Larry Jackson with imminent bodily injury and did then and there use a deadly weapon, to-wit; a 1984 Chrysler automobile that in the manner of its use and intended use was capable of causing death and serious bodily injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.