State v. Rizal’s Empirical Analysis
2019
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Bryan v. United States · State v. McCaslin · State v. Faulkner · State v. Keel · 135 S. Ct. 2298 - McFadden v. United States
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 person acts 'knowingly,' or 'with knowledge,' with respect to the nature of such person's conduct or to circumstances surrounding such person's conduct when such person is aware of the nature of such person's conduct or that the circumstances exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ballantyne“a mistake of fact about the nature of a controlled substance-meaning the actual belief that it is 'some other lawful substance' that is not controlled, State v. Rosa , 304 Kan. 429 , 437, 371 P.3d 915 (2016) -could negate the knowledge requirement”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cottrell“in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. – State v. Harris –
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.