Sweatt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Cary v. State (1976), Parker v. State (1979)
66 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 Alford v. State · 51 Cal. 2d 142 - People v. Poindexter · State v. Tennyson · Moore v. State · 89 Cal. App. 2d 853 - People v. Stone
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the case at bar the issue for the jury was whether Sweatt had sold LSD to Robbie White. Proof that Sweatt had sold marijuana on other occasions had no relevancy except to show that Sweatt had dealt in drugs before and hence was likely to have done so again. That is precisely the type of proof that must be excluded.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is uniformly held that one who buys narcotics, intoxicating liquor, or other contraband is not an accomplice in the sale of the article, for obviously he is not selling to himself. **** [t]o be an accomplice one ‘must stand in the same relation to the crime as the person charged therewith and must approach it from the same direction.’ A buyer and a seller certainly approach the transaction from opposite poles. *### The reason for holding that the purchaser is not the accomplice of the seller is that the purchaser, if guilty of any crime, is guilty of a crime distinct from that for which the seller is being prosecuted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ferguson v. State“The person to whom narcotics are sold is not an accomplice of the defendant who is charged with selling the narcotic. *** The reason for holding that the purchaser is not the accomplice of the seller is that the purchaser, if guilty of any crime, is guilty of a crime distinct from that for which the seller is being prosecuted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brizendine v. State
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.