State v. Kittrell’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Higgins v. Pascack Valley Hospital (1999), Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories Inc. (1999)
40 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. § 856 (§ 416 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Victor v. Nebraska · United States v. Batchelder · Johnson v. Louisiana · United States v. Batchelder
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here is no appreciable difference between the discretion a prosecutor exercises when deciding whether to charge under one of two statutes with different elements and the discretion he exercises when choosing one of two statutes with identical elements. In the former situation, once he determines that the proof will support conviction under either statute, his decision is indistinguishable from the one he faces in the latter context. The prosecutor may be influenced by the penalties available upon conviction, but this fact, standing alone, does not give rise to a violation of the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause.... Just as a defendant has no constitutional right to elect which of two applicable federal statutes shall be the basis of his indictment and prosecution neither is he entitled to choose the penalty scheme under which he will be sentenced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“clearly define[s] the conduct prohibited and the punishment authorized, the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause are satisfied.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether, viewing the State’s evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions 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.