13 Md. App. 615 - Waller v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2006 · most notably 31 Md. App. 271 - Von Lusch v. State (1976), 63 Md. App. 239 - Anaweck v. State (1985)
37 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Coates v. City of Cincinnati · Douglas v. Alabama · Lowe 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he legislature, in using the words “in sufficient quantity to reasonably indicate under all circumstances an intent,” meant no more and no less than with intent, as that phrase is well known in the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]ntent to distribute controlled dangerous substances is ‘seldom proved directly, but is more often found by drawing inferences from facts proved which reasonably indicate under all the circumstances the existence of the required intent.' Likewise, an intent to distribute may be indicated by the very quantity of narcotics possessed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * unlawfully did possess a controlled dangerous substance * * * in sufficient quantity to reasonably indicate under all circumstances an intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled dangerous substance * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.