Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 Kan. 127 - State v. Thornton

State v. Thornton’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2006

20 state decisions

801978198019902000decided

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 Prince v. United States · State v. Lora · State v. Lassley · State v. Gauger · State v. Woods

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

  1. ““Although the elements of the two offenses are different, and although we have held that possession of marijuana is not a lesser included offense in a prosecution for sale of marijuana [citation omitted], we are convinced that die offense of possession of marijuana with intent to sell is merged with the crime of sale of marijuana where, as here, die sale was consummated. In Prince v. United States, 352 U.S. 322 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 370 , 77 S. Ct. 403 (1957), the United States Supreme Court held that the offense of entering a bank with the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein -was merged -with the crime of bank robbery when the latter crime was consummated. The court said: . . [T]he heart of the crime is die intent to steal. This mental element merges into the completed crime if the robbery is consummated. . . .’ (p. 328). “Here, the state charged that Thornton possessed marijuana with the intent to sell it. He sold it to Officer Grow. The intent to sell merged into the crime of sale when the sale was consummated.” 224 Kan. at 131.”
    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.