State v. Flinchpaugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 78 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[olnce a narcotic is injected into the vein, or swallowed orally, it is no longer in the individual's control for the purposes of possession.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 105 Wash. 2d 120 - State v. Hornaday · State v. Lewis

2. ““The Uniform Controlled Substances Act is designed to supplant the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform States Laws in 1933, and the Model State Drug Abuse Control Act, relating to depressant, stimulant, and hallucinogenic drugs, promulgated in 1966. With the enactment of the new Federal narcotic and dangerous drug law, the ‘Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970’ ( Public Law 91-513, short title ‘Controlled Substances Act’ [ 21 U.S.C.A. § 801 et seq.]), it is necessary that the States update and revise their narcotic, marihuana, and dangerous drug laws. “This Uniform Act was drafted to achieve uniformity between the laws of the several States and those of the Federal government. It has been designed to complement the new Federal narcotic and dangerous drug legislation and provide an interlocking trellis of Federal and State law to enable government at all levels to control more effectively the drug abuse problem. “The exploding drug abuse problem in the past ten years has reached epidemic proportions. No longer is the problem confined to a few major cities or to a particular economic group. Today it encompasses almost every nationality, race, and economic level. It has moved from the major urban areas into the suburban and even rural communities, and has manifested itself in every State in the Union. “Much of this major increase in drug use and abuse is attributable to the increased mobility of our cit”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lewis · State v. Miles

3. ““Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proving other events or circumstances which, according to the common experience of mankind, are usually or always attended by the fact in issue, and therefore affords a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury or court of the occurrence of the fact in issue. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Flinchpaugh, 232 Kan. 831, 835 , 659 P.2d 208 (1983).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Grissom · 18 Kan. App. 2d 231 - State v. Ponds