Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 Tex. Crim. 256 - Moore v. State

84 Tex. Crim. 256 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
April 2007
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2007

21 state decisions

601918192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “". . . In order to obtain a conviction under such allegations it must be shown and the charge must limit the consideration of the jury to such state of case. Under the court's charge appellant could have been convicted for receiving the cattle from anyone, known or unknown."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the evidence would not have [supported] the allegation that they were received from some unknown person”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “left the jury to find him guilty if he received it [stolen property] from any one, known or unknown,”
    1 later decision 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.