Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 463 SW2D 312 - Shanks v. Commonwealth

Shanks v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 2007
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2007

11 state decisions

601971198019902000decided

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 · State v. Espinosa · Alford v. Commonwealth · 24 Ill. 2d 188 - The People v. Lott · Crusen v. United Air Lines, Inc.

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We are of the opinion that under the act if one offers for sale what he reasonably believes to be a narcotic drug and it later turns out in fact not to be a narcotic, this is sufficient to support a conviction. For here we have present the union of an act and a criminal intent, both of which are normally required to constitute a crime. This is not true of the case before us, for the reason that Shanks knew the material sold was sugar and not a narcotic. We do not believe this will support a conviction under the statute. Had he thought the material to be a narcotic the case would be different. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It has long been the rule that the fact that a police officer hides his identity and solicits the purchase of illegal goods does not constitute illegal entrapment.””
    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.