State v. Shepherd’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
25 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 123 Wash. 2d 351 - State v. Riker · United States v. Lemon · 92 Wash. 2d 631 - Sacred Heart Medical Center v. Carrado · 94 Wash. App. 80 - State v. Karpenski · 77 Wash. App. 882 - Matter of Detention of Twining
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Meet all criteria for status as a primary caregiver to a qualifying patient; (b) Possess, in combination with and as an agent for the qualifying patient, no more marijuana than is necessary for the patient's personal, medical use, not exceeding the amount necessary for a sixty-day supply; (c) Present a copy of the qualifying patient's valid documentation required by this chapter, as well as evidence of designation to act as primary caregiver by the patient, to any law enforcement officer requesting such information.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Adams · State v. Otis“(a) Is a patient of a physician licensed under chapter 18.71 or 18.57 RCW; (b) Has been diagnosed by that physician as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition; (c) Is a resident of the state of Washington at the time of such diagnosis; (d) Has been advised by that physician about the risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana; and (e) Has been advised by that physician that they may benefit from the medical use of marijuana.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fry · State v. Otis“If charged with a violation of state law relating to marijuana, any qualifying patient who is engaged in the medical use of marijuana, or any designated primary caregiver who assists a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana, will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such charges by proof of his or her compliance with the requirements provided in this chapter.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Adams · State v. Ginn
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.