DeVaughn v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Bynum v. State (1989), Burks v. State (1994)
4 federal appellate · 65 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 Thomas v. State · American Plant Food Corporation v. State · Day v. State · Brasfield v. State · Adams 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 72 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.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Woods v. State · Olurebi v. State“(1) enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not open to the public, with intent to commit a felony or theft; or (2) remains concealed, with intent to commit a felony or theft, in a building or habitation; or (3) enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a felony or theft. [6]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the attempted or completed theft or felony required by § 30.02(a)(3), supra, merely supplants the specific intent which accompanies entry in §§ 30.02(a)(1) and (2) The gravamen of the offense of burglary clearly remains entry of a building or habitation without the effective consent of the owner, accompanied by either the required mental state, under §§ 30.02(a)(1) and (2) ... or the further requisite acts or omissions, under § 30.02(a)(3).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.