Sherelis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 2005
4 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 Maldonado v. State · Candler v. State · Beavers v. State · Clemons v. State · McClain 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Whether the trial court erred in its determination that cocaine hydrochloride is a controlled substance within the meaning of I.C. 35-48-4-1; 2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning negotiations for purchase of weapons and a reference to John DeLorean; 3. Whether the trial court erred in limiting appellant’s examination of two witnesses; 4. Whether the trial court erred in not permitting introduction of appellant’s Exhibit “G”; 5. Whether the trial court erred in refusing portions of appellant’s tendered Preliminary Instruction No. 7 and Final Instruction No. 10; 6. Whether the trial court denied appellant due process and a fair trial; 7. Whether the trial court should be ordered to reduce the amount of bail in the event of reversal; 8. Whether the judgment was supported by the evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Cocaine” includes coca leaves and any salt, compound, or derivative of coca leaves, and any salt, compound, isomer, derivative, or preparation which is chemically equivalent or identical to any of these substances; however, de-cocainized coca leaves or extraction of coca leaves that do not contain cocaine or ecgonine are not included. stance within the meaning of I.C. 35-48-4-1.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“These are the facts from the record that tend to support the determination of guilt. On August 5, 1982 appellant was introduced to two undercover Elkhart City Police officers. In the early hours of August 6,1982, appellant gave a small amount of cocaine hydrochloride to an undercover Elkhart City Police officer. This delivery resulted in Count II, delivery of a controlled substance of less than 3 grams. Later in the same day, appellant sold cocaine hydrochloride to an undercover Elkhart City Police officer. On September 15, 1982, appellant sold cocaine hydrochloride to an undercover Elkhart City Police officer. On September 24, 1982, appellant sold cocaine hydrochloride to an undercover Elkhart City Police officer. On October 29, 1982, appellant sold cocaine hydrochloride to an undercover Elkhart City Police officer. These deliveries resulted in Counts I, III, IV, and V, delivery of a controlled substance in excess of 3 grams.”
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.