Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 945 SW2D 852 - Jones v. State

Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2014

5 state decisions

20199720002010decided

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 Clewis v. State · Franklin v. State · Wood 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “At some point prior to Monday, May 29, 1995, a camera store located in a mall in College Station was burglarized. Eight video cameras were stolen. Four of the video cameras were recovered from various pawn shops in Austin. According to the evidence adduced at trial, a man named “Reggie” and several other men approached Jones at his home in Tunis, a small community located in Burleson County, which borders on the west side of Brazos County, the county where the burglary occurred. ... Jones, who used his driver’s license in completing the transaction at each pawn shop, was arrested and convicted for theft, to-wit: receiving stolen property. See Tex. Penal Code ÁNN. § 31.03(a), (b)(2).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “that the property appropriated by the defendant was stolen; the State is not required to prove where the property was stolen. Because we will not require the State to prove more than is required, we conclude there is no evidence that any element of the charged offense occurred in Brazos County and, thus, venue there was improper.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Where property is stolen in one county and removed by the offender to another county, the offender may be prosecuted either in the county where he took the property or in any other county through or into which he may have removed the same.”
    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.