Valles v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2001
14 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 Garza v. Alviar · Freeman v. Texas Compensation Insurance Co. · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Moore · Freeman v. Texas Compensation Insurance Co. · Mansell v. Hendrickson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sec. 5.03(a) The following are subject to forfeiture as authorized by this subchap-ter: (6) all money, certificates of deposit, negotiable instruments, securities, stocks, bonds, businesses or business investments, contractual rights, real estate, personal property, or other things of value used or intended for use in violation of Section 4.052 of this Act or derived from the sale, manufacture, distribution, dispensation, delivery, or other commercial undertaking viola-tive of this Act; ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barron v. State“(a) The following are subject to forfeiture as authorized by this subchapter: * * * * * * (6) all money, certificates of deposit, negotiable instruments, securities, stocks, bonds, businesses or business investments, contractual rights, real estate, personal property, or other things of value derived from the sale, manufacture, distribution, dispensation, delivery, or other commercial undertaking violative of this Act; ... [Emphasis ours.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henderson v. State“Based on these admissions, and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the heroin, the trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, could reasonably have inferred that the money had been derived from the sale of a controlled substance. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Henderson 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.