Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 720 SW2D 264 - Scott v. State

Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2013

4 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 Albrecht v. State · Williams v. State · Plante v. State · Morgan v. State · Rubio 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]here the material issue addressed is the defendant’s intent to commit the offense charged, the relevancy of the extraneous offense derives purely from the point of view of the doctrine of chances — the instinctive recognition of that logical process which eliminates the element of innocent intent by multiplying instances of the same result until it is perceived that this element cannot explain them all. Without formulating any accurate test, and without attempting by numerous instances to secure absolute certainty of inference, the mind applies this rough and instinctive process of reasoning namely, that an unusual and abnormal element might perhaps be present in one instant [sic], but that the oftener [sic] similar instances occur with similar results, the less likely is the abnormal element likely, to be the true explanation of them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the relevance of the extraneous transaction does not derive from any similarity it may have to the charged offense, but from its similarity to appellant’s defensive testimony.”
    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.