State v. Lopez’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. (2009), State v. Quick (2009)
36 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 Blockburger v. United States · Swafford v. State · State v. Rojo · State v. Bernal · State v. Jacobs
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here was no evidence indicating that the methamphetamine she had at the home, whether it was discovered in the home or on her person at the hospital, and even if the substances discovered were different in quantity or packaging, should be separated into different categories of "mere possession," and "possession with intent to distribute." The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Defendant possessed all methamphetamine in question at the residence and that its purpose could have been both for personal use and for distribution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Quick“[P]ossession with intent to distribute has one additional element that simple possession does not have: intent to transfer the substance to another. However, proving a violation of possession with intent to distribute necessarily requires the State to prove Defendant possessed the methamphetamine. Therefore, ... simple possession is subsumed within possession with intent to distribute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Quick“Distinctness may ... be established by the existence of an intervening event, the defendant's intent as evinced by his or her conduct and utterances, the number of victims, and the behavior of the defendant between acts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Urioste
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.