130 Wash. App. 461 - State v. Moles’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2021
12 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 119 Wash. 2d 192 - State v. Salinas · 94 Wash. 2d 634 - State v. Delmarter · 85 Wash. 2d 758 - State v. Gosby · 64 Wash. App. 641 - State v. Huff
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[b]are possession of a controlled substance is not enough to support an intent to manufacture conviction; at least one additional factor, suggestive of intent, must be present.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brockob · State v. Whalen“The fact that so many pills had been removed from the blister packs leads to the only plausible inference: that the defendants were in the process of preparing the pseudoephedrine for the first stage of the manufacturing process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Missieur“[a] person who knowingly plays a role in the manufacturing process can be guilty of manufacturing, even if someone else completes the process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brockob
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.