194 N.J. Super. 622 - State v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) [defendant's] condition; (2) that it is "sense-threatening" — in his case, that the involuntary spastic episodes are real and painful; (3) that physiological relief (that is by way of muscle relaxation, "pain blocking" of the nervous system or the like) does occur and (4) that there is no other licit substance which can be prescribed affording the same benefits but without other deleterious side effects. [ State v. Tate, 194 N.J. Super. 622, 633 (Law Div. 1984)].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 N.J. Super. 285 - State v. Tate

2. “It is unlawful for any person, knowingly or intentionally, to obtain, or to possess, actually or constructively, a controlled dangerous substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this act. [Id. (emphasis added).]”

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

3. “Necessity. Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity to the extent permitted by law and as to which neither the code nor other statutory law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved and a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.”

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