Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 749 SW2D 804 - Ibanez v. State

Ibanez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Watson v. State (2006), Dowthitt v. State (1996)

2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

1901986199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Griffin v. State · Cannon v. State · Fierro v. State · Autry 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A killing and unrelated taking of property [, however,] do not constitute capital murder under 19.03(a)(2).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in the course of committing or attempting to commit robbery”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “There is ample evidence that appellant committed a robbery either during or immediately after the commission of the murder. Crosby was found dead, brutally beaten, and his wallet and car were missing. Andrew Sells testified that he and his friends saw appellant leaving Crosby’s rental home in Crosby’s car shortly after the time of the alleged murder. Appellant, who earlier that day borrowed a dollar for a can of Skoal, purchased clothing and jewelry for himself and his girlfriend later that evening. ... While there is not evidence that appellant demanded money or property from Crosby before attacking him with the hammer, such evidence is not the talisman of an intent to steal; the intent may be inferred from the actions or conduct of appellant.”
    1 later decision 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.