Cook v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Williams v. State (2007), Alvarado v. State (1995)
4 federal appellate · 113 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 Morissette v. United States · Cage v. Louisiana · Almanza v. State · Carter v. Nesby · Eastern Publishing & Advertising, Inc. v. Chesapeake Publishing & Advertising, Inc.
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage“Now if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that ... Ba-zanes, did then and there, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of said defendant, intentionally or knowingly cause [E.C.B.], a child younger than 17 years and not the spouse of the defendant, to engage in sexual contact by causing the said child, [E.C.B.] to touch the genitals of the defendant ..., then you will find the defendant guilty of Indecency with a Child, as charged in Count III of the indictment.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bazanes v. State · Harrell v. State“1. Our law provides that a person commits murder if he knowingly or intentionally causes the death of an individual. 2. A person acts “knowingly” or with “knowledge”, with respect to the nature of Ms conduct when, he is aware of the nature of his conduct. A person acts “intentionally’ or with “intent” with respect to the result of his conduct, when it is his conscious objective or desire to cause the result. A person acts “recklessly” or is “reckless” with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and a degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the standpoint of defendant. [[Image here]] 3. Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 14th day of May, 1993, in Fannin County, Texas, the defendant, CLARENCE SIMMS AKA A.C. SIMMS, intentionally or knowingly caused the death of an individual, R.T. Sweet, by shooting him with a gun, you will find the defendant guilty of Murder as charged in the indictment. Unless you so find beyond a reasonable doubt, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you acquit the defendant of murder and next consider whether he is guilty of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault. 4. A person commits an assault if h”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hughes v. State · Nations 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.