Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 728 SW2D 804 - Hayes v. State

Hayes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Moore v. State (1998), Granger v. State (1999)

115 state decisions

6701987199020002010decided

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 Almanza v. State · Arline v. State · Day v. State · Simpkins v. State · Lugo 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31 of this code; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “anything that in the manner of its [actual] use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 24th day of February 1995, in Harris County, Texas, the defendant, Ned Jones, did then and there unlawfully while in the course of committing theft of property owned by Michelle Yancey, and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, intentionally or knowingly cause bodily injury to Michelle Yancey, by striking Michelle Yancey in the head, then you will find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment. Unless you so find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit the defendant and say by your verdict “Not guilty.””
    2 later decisions 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.