Ex Parte Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2013
8 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 176th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Drumm v. State · Burrell v. State · Whetstone v. State · Oliver v. State · Harris 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he gravamen of the offense ... is the physical adaptation of the alleged instrument for a specific criminal intent.... We find that any illegality to be proved is in the inherent characteristics of the object itself as adapted, and not in the conduct of defendants in using the object within a particular criminal episode. An object does not become a criminal instrument by the context of its use, but by the limited nature and specialized criminal use of its own distinctive properties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“anything, the possession, manufacture, or sale of which is not otherwise an offense, that is specially designed, made, or adapted for use in the commission of an offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jackson v. State
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.