Eastep v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Curry v. State (2000), Gollihar v. State (2001)
1 federal appellate · 41 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 Kitchens v. State · Sodipo v. State · Bigby v. State · Aguirre v. State · Ward 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) After notice to the defendant, a matter of form or substance in an indictment or information may be amended at any time before the date the trial on the merits commences. On the request of the defendant, the court shall allow the defendant not less than 10 days, or a shorter period if requested by the defendant, to respond to the amended indictment or information.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ji Chen v. State · Briscoe v. State“[t]he general rule is that allegations which are not essential to constitute the offense, and which might be entirely omitted without affecting the charge against the defendant, are treated as surplusage.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Briscoe v. State · Chavis v. State“For example, when an indictment describes a necessary person, place, or thing with unnecessary particularity, the State must prove all circumstances of the description. Burrell, 526 S.W.2d at 802. In McClure v. State, 163 Tex.Crim. 650 , 296 S.W.2d 263, 264 (App.1956), “on the premises at the Alamo Cafe located at Cleveland and Second Streets, City of Memphis, Texas” was not surplusage and the State had to prove the exact location. Likewise in Cohen v. State, 479 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), when the State alleged a particular block in which illegal fireworks were transported, we held the street address was not surplusage, therefore, the State had to prove the exact address. See also, Weaver v. State, 551 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) (“Ruger” not surplusage because the gun could be a “Luger.”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gollihar 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.