450 So. 2d 648 - State v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 627 So. 2d 1373 - State v. Code (1993), State v. Daniels (1993)
29 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 443 So. 2d 1098 - State v. Trosclair · State v. Ray · 416 So. 2d 78 - State v. Wheeler · 366 So. 2d 1308 - State v. Allien · 421 So. 2d 895 - State v. Montana
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““MR. L’HOSTE: This is a hypothetical question. If someone is standing on the corner of London and Dorgenois with a matchbox which contained twenty seven foils of heroin, in your professional opinion, what is the probability — what is the purpose of him standing there with that match box of heroin ... “WITNESS: In my opinion, a person standing on the street corner with a matchbox containing say twenty-seven tin foils containing heroin, would be there for the purpose of selling or distributing.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Daniels · State v. Smith“would be involved in the distribution of marijuana,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Daniels · State v. Smith“"Clearly, an expert in drug distribution can give his opinion as to practices about which the average juror would have no competence. Earlier in his testimony, Officer Peralta testified that possession of twenty-five foils of heroin was generally considered a wholesale amount of heroin. Trans., p. 57. This was permissible opinion testimony, since knowledge of the amount of heroin usually used or possessed for personal consumption as distinguished from amounts possessed for sale or distribution was not a fact within the knowledge of the average individual. "On the other hand, the ultimate issue of the defendant's guilt is not a question reserved for an expert witness."”
2 later decisions 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.