Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 P.3d 244 - Dollison v. State

Dollison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 2024

4 state decisions

20200020102020decided

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 · Cooksey v. State · Zehrung v. State · Zehrung v. State · Dunn 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “does not refer to the amount that is typically prosecuted or the typical case that appears on a judge's docket. Here, the sentencing judge gave no consideration to the form or purity of the heroin that Pocock sold. Nor did the judge expressly consider the relatively small commercial value of the heroin ($50 for each of three sales). Instead, the judge focused on the fact that the amount of heroin, although small, was typical for a single”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The "typical drug case" referred to in Knight is a drug case where the quantity involved in the case falls in the broad middle ground penalized by the statute when considering the nature of the substance, its form, its purity, its commercial value, and its relative availability or searcity. The "typical drug case" does not refer to the amount that is typically prosecuted or the typical case that appears on a judge's docket.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “referred to in Knight is a drug case where the quantity involved in the case falls in the broad middle ground penalized by the statute when considering the nature of the substance, its form, its purity, its commercial value, and its relative availability or searcity. The”
    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.