310 So. 2d 721 - Schloder v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2006
7 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 Jones v. United States · Westmoreland v. State · Wells v. State · Garza-Fuentes v. United States · 260 So. 2d 425 - Wolf 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Except as authorized by this article, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally: (1) To ... possess with intent to sell, barter, transfer, manufacture, distribute or dispense, a controlled substance; ... ... . (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced as follows: (1) In the case of controlled substances classified in schedule I or II, as set out in sections 41-29-113 and 41-29-115, ... such person may, upon conviction, be imprisoned for not more than thirty (30) years or fined not more than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) or both;”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Evans v. State“unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally possess more than one ounce of marijuana and prescribe[d] as a penalty therefor a fine of $3,000 or imprisonment in the state penitentiary for not more than three years, or both. Therefore, the demurrer was properly overruled since the indictment charged appellant with the crime of possession of more than one ounce of marijuana. The words `with intent to sell' were surplusage. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The failure of the Legislature to make it unlawful to possess a controlled substance with intent to sell the same was no doubt an oversight; however, criminal statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed in favor of the accused. McInnis v. State, 97 Miss. 280 , 52 So. 634 (1910). Therefore, appellant was erroneously charged with possession with intent to sell. ( 310 So.2d at 723 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mosley 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.