State v. Boothe’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2017
6 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 Roberts v. Louisiana · Lunday Ex Rel. Lunday v. Vogelmann · 33 N.C. App. 291 - State v. Wiggins · Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Huff · Bedell 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The acts of ‘preparation’ and ‘compounding’ represent only two of several acts which constitute manufacturing under that definition. Other acts which constitute manufacturing include produc tion, propogation, conversion, processing, packaging or repackaging, and labelling or relabelling of a controlled substance. If it had been the intention of the legislature that all acts within the statutory definition were to be excluded if done by an individual for his own use, it could easily have so provided by applying the proviso directly to the term ‘manufacturing’ rather than to some but not all acts of manufacturing. “We find that the language which was employed suggests an intent to limit the application of the personal use proviso to acts of preparation or compounding of a controlled substance. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that another proviso contained in the same definition pertaining to medical doctors and other persons or institutions licensed to distribute, dispense or conduct research relating to controlled substances is also applicable to some but not all acts of manufacturing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A substance falling within the definition of a controlled substance may sometimes require further preparation or compounding in order to be ingested or consumed for personal use even though obtained from an independent source. Under such circumstances, if it were not for the proviso under consideration, possessors for personal use could also be punished as manufacturers if they prepared or compounded the substance for that purpose. This class of persons could reasonably be classified by the legislative body as subject to punishment only as simple possessors. Conversely, other acts within the definition of manufacturing could reasonably be classified as calling for more severe punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dodd“[T]he production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container, except that, this term does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for the individual’s own use,....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Spivie
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.