170 W. Va. 169 - State v. Drake’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably 185 W. Va. 422 - State v. Julius (1991), 172 W. Va. 491 - State v. Zaccagnini (1983)
28 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Bates v. State Bar · Michigan v. Tucker · Hill v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 25 · 157 W. Va. 640 - State v. Thomas
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ “[p]robable cause to make an arrest without a warrant exists when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officers are sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that an offense has been committed.” Point 1 Syllabus, State v. Plantz, [155] W.Va. [24] [ 180 S.E.2d 614 . (1971)].’ Syllabus Point 3, State v. Duvernoy, 156 W.Va. 578 , 195 S.E.2d 631 (1973).” Syl. Pt. 7, State v. Craft, 165 W.Va. 741 , 272 S.E.2d 46 (1980).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[m]ost courts have held that possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance can be proven by establishing a number of circumstances, among which are the quantity of the controlled substance possessed and the presence of other paraphernalia customarily used in the packaging and delivery of controlled substances.” Syllabus Point 4, State v. Drake, 170 W.Va. 169 , 291 S.E.2d 484 (1982).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The question of whether a person possesses a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver is a jury question to be determined like other questions of intent from all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and as such intent is a basic element of the offense, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.