Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 260 Ind. 180 - Skaggs v. State

Skaggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
5
states following
November 2001
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Patterson v. State (1975), Ballard v. State (1974)

37 state decisions

1901973198019902000decided

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

Applies 21 U.S.C. § 321 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on Ashton v. Anderson · 140 Ind. App. 139 - Kavanagh v. Butorac · Harris v. State · Wells v. State · State Ex Rel. Fry v. Superior Court of Lake County

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

  1. ““ (j) ‘Dangerous drug’ means (1) any drug the label of which is required by federal law to bear the statement: ‘Caution: Federal law prohibits dispensing without a prescription’; (2) any drug which, because of its toxicity or other potentiality for harmful effect, or the method of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use, is not safe for use except under the super vision of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe or administer such drug; or (5) any drug appearing on the consolidated list of DACA drugs compiled in compliance with the drug abuse control amendments of 21 U.S.C., sec. 321 subsec. (v), P.L. 89-74, sec. 3(a), or any supplement thereof.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[oldinarily, details of prior convictions should not be explored,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.