State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Johnson (1988), State v. Farrow (1995)
4 district · 28 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 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Berger v. United States · Russell v. United States · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, Inc. · Streeter v. United States · White v. Morgan
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction that where one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the latter will be regarded as an exception to the general enactment where the two conflict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Peck · Appeal of Johnson“Whether the identity of the purchaser of illicit drugs is an element of the offense which must be alleged and proved to support a conviction has been addressed by numerous federal and state courts. The federal courts have repeatedly held that the identity of the purchaser is not an element which must be alleged and proved to support a conviction under the federal drug statutes. See United States v. Cosby, 529 F.2d 143, 146 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 935 , 96 S.Ct. 2647 , 49 L.Ed.2d 386 (1976); Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45, 47 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 877 , 89 S.Ct. 176 , 21 L.Ed.2d 149 (1968); Flores v. United States, 338 F.2d 966, 967 (10th Cir.1964); Rivera v. United States, 318 F.2d 606, 607 (9th Cir.1963). Many State courts have reached the same conclusion under their respective drug acts. See State v. LeMatty, 121 Ariz. 333, 336 , 590 P.2d 449, 452 (1979); Mora v. People, 172 Colo. 261, 264 , 472 P.2d 142, 144 (1970); People v. Adams, 46 Ill.2d 200, 203 , 263 N.E.2d 490, 491 (1970), aff'd, 405 U.S. 278 , 92 S.Ct. 916 , 31 L.Ed.2d 202 (1972); Carter v. State, 521 P.2d 85 (Okla.Crim.1974). Only one jurisdiction has held the identity of the purchaser of illicit drugs to be an element of the offense. State v. Ingram, 20 N.C.App. 464, 466 , 201 S.E.2d 532, 534 (1974).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mayes““the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. . . 1. That the Defendant acted knowingly, as I have defined that term. 2. That the Defendant permitted gambling, as defined during the course of my instructions. 3. That the premises where it is alleged to have taken place were under the Defendant’s control. 4. That it was not lawful.””
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.