16 Kan. App. 2d 443 - State v. Northrup’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 state decisions

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"evidence of the physical appearance of the substance involved in the transaction, evidence that the substance produced the expected effects when sampled by someone familiar with the illicit drug, evidence that the substance was used in the same manner as the illicit drug, testimony that a high price was paid in cash for the substance, evidence that transactions involving the substance were carried on with secrecy or deviousness, and evidence that the substance was called by the name of the illegal narcotic by the defendant or others in his presence."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mitchell · Urrutia v. State

2. “proof of the identity of a substance by circumstantial evidence may be sufficient in a drug prosecution where no chemical tests are admitted or available.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brazzle

3. “scientific chemical analysis of a substance will provide the most reliable evidence as to the identity of that substance,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brazzle