Melton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2020
15 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 Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Hardy · 146 Ill. App. 3d 888 - People v. Kaludis · 15 Ill. App. 3d 125 - People v. Ohley · 77 Ohio App. 3d 691 - In Re Lemons
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he State is no longer required to determine the amount of controlled substance and the amount of adulterant and dilutant that constitute the mixture. The State has to prove only that the aggregate weight of the controlled substance mixture, including adulterants and dilutants, equals the alleged minimum weight.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Jones v. State · Erskine v. State“[I]t would be unnecessary to require the State to test each rock to determine whether it contains cocaine, much in the same way that it would be unnecessary to require the State to prove that each grain of a powdery substance contains cocaine, especially if there were, hypothetically, 350 to 400 rocks instead of thirty-five to forty, all with the same appearance, and all found in the same receptacle. The Legislature did away with the requirement for this sort of hyper-technical analysis when it amended the definition of “adulterant or dilu-tant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hayes v. State“rocks” was composed entirely of a non-cocaine substance, then those substances were not adulterants or dilutants and their weight could not be added to the aggregate weight of the cocaine. Id. at 341 . The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed and held that the court of appeals should not have treated each rock as a separate controlled substance but should have treated all the rocks as a mixture because the term “controlled substance” includes the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Graham 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.