Casillas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Bynum v. State (1989), Mireles v. Texas Department of Public Safety (1999)
25 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 687 · 18 U.S.C. § 657 · 42 U.S.C. § 2861 · 42 U.S.C. § 9912
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. James · Territory of Guam v. Okada · Anderson v. State · Mutscher 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) For purposes of this section: (1) ‘Fiduciary’ includes: (A) trustee, guardian, administrator, executor, conservator, and receiver; (B) any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity, but not a commercial bailee; and (C) an officer, manager, employee, or agent carrying on fiduciary functions on behalf of a fiduciary. (2) ‘Misapply’ means deal with property contrary to: (A) an agreement under which the fiduciary holds the property; or (B) a law prescribing the custody or disposition of the property. (b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly misapplies property he holds as a fiduciary or property of a financial institution in a manner that involves substantial risk of loss to the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property is held.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Bynum v. State · Amaya v. State“The Bynum, supra, discussion of substantial risk of loss comports with that of the Model Code: a “real possibility” of loss is one, we believe, that exists but does not rise to the level of a substantial certainty. It need not have to be “un likely” that the property will be recovered, but the risk of loss does have to be a positive possibility; we conclude that the risk must be, at least, more likely than not. Casillas, supra at 164 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bynum v. State“prescribing the custody or disposition of the property’ as contemplated by V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 32.45, supra. Examples of laws which do fit § 32.45, supra, are the duties imposed on trustees by the Texas Trust Code, §§ 113.051-113.055 (Vernon’s 1984). For example, § 113.-052 states, in part:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Amaya 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.