State v. Neeley’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 123 Wash. 2d 641 - State v. Hill · 123 Wash. 2d 173 - State v. Young · 107 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Kennedy · State v. Ladson · 95 Wash. 2d 898 - State v. Seagull
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“use drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. George“); State v. Lowrimore, 67 Wash.App. 949, 959 , 841 P.2d 779 (1992) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. George“); State v. McKenna, 91 Wash.App. 554, 563 , 958 P.2d 1017 (1998) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. George
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.