Borras v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
1 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 1997 · most notably 49 Ill. 2d 338 - The People v. McCabe (1971), Ravin v. State (1975)
1 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Stanley v. Georgia · Commonwealth v. Leis · 227 So. 2d 489 - State v. Eitel · 225 So. 2d 330 - Raines v. State
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . uses the present tense alleging a violation which was continuing right up to the time the warrant issued.” (emphasis added)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Law · Merit v. State“Appellant states that the primary purpose of smoking marijuana is the “psychological reaction” it produces in the user and that by smoking marijuana he was “merely asserting the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of his own home.” This Court is aware that commission of other types of crime, particularly violent crimes, has an emotional effect on the perpetrator. This, however, does not give a constitutional right to commit the crime. Marijuana does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. Its use does not constitute “private consumption of ideas or information.” Neither are Fourteenth Amendment rights abridged nor the right of privacy violated. Marijuana is a harmful, mind-altering drug. An individual might restrict his possession of marijuana to the privacy of his home, but the effects of the drug are not so restricted. The interest of the state in preventing harm to the individual and to the public at large amply justifies the outlawing of marijuana in private and elsewhere.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gilbert
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.