Stillwell v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 5 Va. App. 468 - Harward v. Commonwealth (1988), Heacock v. Commonwealth (1984)
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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York · Hicks v. Miranda · Mandel v. Bradley · Morris v. Gressette
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In its enactment of The Drag Control Act the General Assembly recognized that, except in very rare and most unusual cases, there can be no lawful possession, sale or distribution of drags by anyone, particularly of those drags classified in Schedules I, II and III.... With few exceptions, enumerated by statute, no one can lawfully manufacture, possess, sell or distribute such drags____ The possession of drags is confined to a small group of professionals who are required to dispense the drags under restricted and controlled conditions. By and large, it can be said that the lawful possession of drugs is restricted to licensed manufacturers, licensed pharmacists, and to individuals who have possession as a result of a prescription given by an authorized physician. The General Assembly recognized that seldom, if ever, except in these authorized instances, could there be any explanation for the sale or possession of drugs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ Code § 18.2-248 ], in our view, creates only a single offense, that being the unlawful manufacture, sale, transfer or distribution, or possession with the intent to manufacture, sell, give, distribute or possess certain controlled drugs. The provisions of [ Code § 18.2-248(D) ], which deal with the reduced penalty contingent upon proof of an accommodation gift, distribution or possession of [a controlled substance] operate only to mitigate the degree of criminality or punishment, rather than to create two different substantive offenses[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is required to produce some evidence which satisfies the trier of the facts that his distribution was for accommodation. The [rebuttable inference, that a distribution of a controlled substance was done with the intent to profit,] created by the statute retains its effect until opposing evidence (whether from the Commonwealth or the defendant) is sufficient to make a case for the jury, that is, to convince the judge that a jury could reasonably find that the defendant was an accommodation distributor.”
1 later decision 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.