Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 S.W.2d 162 - Posey v. State

Posey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Brewster v. State (1980), Cruise v. State (1979)

43 state decisions

18019771980199020002010decided

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 American Plant Food Corporation v. State · Terry v. State · 144 Tex. Crim. 270 - Reeves v. State · 86 Tex. Crim. 450 - Kennedy v. State · 97 Tex. Crim. 219 - Bush 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"It is not a criminal offense to obtain a controlled substance for a friend or family member by presenting to a pharmacist a prescription prescribing a controlled substance for that friend or family member which had been properly obtained." Id. at 164 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““. . . did unlawfully: then and there knowingly and intentionally acquire and obtain possession of a controlled substance, namely: PHENMATRAZINE by misrepresentation, fraud, deception, and subterfuge, in that he, the said defendant, did then and there present to Dwayne Wallace, a pharmacist, a prescription for said controlled substance, said prescription purportedly to prescribe said controlled substance for Tina Hall.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “under Section 4.09(a)(3) of the Controlled Substances Act. In the instant case the allegation of rape by force or threats is not subject to any interpretation other than that described in the statute. Appellant's second ground of error referring to the insufficiency of the evidence to show penetration is raised in a pro se document which is captioned”
    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.