Posey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. ““Accommodation agency as applied in narcotics cases began with Durham v. State. ... In Durham the Court applied the doctrine of accommodation agency that had been applied in prosecutions for the sale of liquor in violation of the local option liquor law. . . . “In the liquor cases ‘sale’ was given its ordinary definition and consideration was a necessary element. A mere transfer, without evidence of barter or payment, was inadequate to sustain a conviction for the sale of liquor in violation of the local option laws. . . . “The definition of ‘sale’ as applied in narcotics eases is: “ ‘ “Sale” includes barter, exchange, or gift, or offer therefor, and, each such transaction made by any person, whether as principal, proprietor, agent, servant, or employee.’ [Citation omitted.] “Under this definition, proof of consideration is not required as an element of the offense. . . . Because an exchange without consideration or a gift is a sale under this definition, a transfer merely for the accommodation of a principal-purchaser does come within the definition of ‘sale’ applicable to the offense. In the case before us, the appellant may well have been the agent of the purchaser, acting without hope of benefit. However, the appellant, while admitting the transfer, raises nothing which precludes it from being a ‘sale’ under the statutory definition.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 183 - State v. Hairiston