Ex Parte Wilson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Stanfield v. State (1986), Taylor v. State (1981)
20 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 Benoit v. State · 172 Tex. Crim. 461 - Taylor v. State · Newsom v. State · Henley v. State · McClanahan 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To state the rule generally, we hold that in a prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act for the manufacture, delivery, or possession of a substance not specifically named in a penalty group but which is otherwise described in a penalty group (for example, an isomer of methamphetamine), such description is an essential element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment in order to state an offense.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrell v. State · Fewell v. State“(1) Procaine, its salts, derivatives or compounds or mixtures thereof except ointments and creams for topical application containing not more than two and one-half percent (2½%) strength. (2) Any drug or device which bears or is required to bear the legend: Caution: federal law prohibits dispensing without prescription, or the legend: Caution: federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Smith““As such, the indictment in this cause ‘does not allege why [cocaine], a substance not listed by name in a penalty group, is a controlled substance. Therefore, the indictment fails to allege an essential element of the offense and is fundamentally defective.’ Ex parte Wilson, supra, 588 S.W.2d 905 at 909 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor 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.