Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 N.E.2d 393 - Copeland v. State

Copeland v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
7
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 2014

19 state decisions

801982199020002010decided

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 Hall v. State · 182 Ind. App. 156 - Roddy v. State · Slettvet v. State · Pettit v. State · Adams 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “there must be some evidence establishing the distinguishable characteristics of the substance. To hold otherwise would seriously infringe upon the defendant's presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “did not illuminate how he identified the drug, that is, whether the pills had any distinguishing markings or any other method to determine that the substance was dilaudid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “testimony of someone sufficiently experienced with the drug indicating that the substance was indeed a dangerous drug”
    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.