Romack v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2013
15 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 Chimel v. California · Chambers v. Maroney · Johnson v. United States · Patterson v. State · Davis 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Tllegal possession of large quantities of narcotics does not create a presumption of intent to deliver, but may support an inference of intent.... The probative value of quantity in proving intent obviously increases as the quantity itself becomes greater, but there is some confusion as to how the State may prove that a particular quantity exceeds an amount which would be possessed for personal consumption. "At Romack's trial, the State failed to introduce expert testimony as to quantity and personal use. We believe that the importance of quantity was attenuated due to the absence of such testimony. In some circumstances, that omission would prove fatal, especially where there is evidence that the defendant is a drug user and where the amount of narcotics in possession is less than the quantity in the present case [two hundred tablets of methaqualone]."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'GRADY v. State“A person who: [[Image here]] (2) possesses, with intent to ... deliver, a controlled substance, pure or adulterated, classified in schedule I [heroin] [[Image here]] commits dealing in a schedule I ... controlled substance, a Class B felony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. O'GRADY v. State“the offense specified in subsection (a),”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burst 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.