McLean v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2010
11 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 Caruthers v. State · Villines v. State · 9 Smith & H. 639 - Brown v. State · Nunley v. State · Hayes 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) who is subject to Sections 30-31-11 through 30-31-19 NMSA 1978 to intentionally distribute or dispense a controlled substance in violation of Section 30-31-18 NMSA 1978; (2) who is a registrant, to intentionally manufacture a controlled substance not authorized by his registration, or to intentionally distribute or dispense a controlled substance not authorized by his registration to another registrant or other authorized person; (3) to intentionally refuse or fail to make, keep or furnish any record, notification, order form, statements, invoice or information required under the Controlled Substances Act * * * * (4) to intentionally refuse any entry into any premises for any inspection authorized by the Controlled Substances Act. B. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a fourth degree felony and shall be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 (1980 Repl.Pamph.). Section 30-31-18, violation of which by registrants is prohibited under § 30-31-24(A)(1), reads: A. No controlled substance listed in Schedule II which is a prescription drug as determined by the federal food and drug administration, may be dispensed without a written prescription of a practitioner, unless administered directly to an ultimate user. No prescription for a Schedule II substance may be refilled. No person other than a practitioner shall prescribe or write a prescription. B. Prescriptions for Schedules II through IV shall contain the following information: (1) ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Carr“On behalf of the State it is urged that the evidence offered at the trial was sufficient to convict the petitioner of a violation of T.C.A. § 52-1431 [now 53-11-308], that is selling a controlled substance falling within Schedule III without a prescription. It is therefore argued that there has been an error made simply as to the degree of punishment, and we are urged to reverse the case and remand it for a new trial on punishment only. While this might be permissible under some circumstances, we do not believe it appropriate where the petitioner has been indicted and tried under an inapplicable statute. It seems to us that there has been such a material variance between the offense charged and that attempted to be shown in evidence as to void the conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dominy“It seems clear to us that the petitioner should properly have been indicted and tried for violation of T.C.A. § 52-1431 [now 53-11-308], and sentenced according to T.C.A. § 52-1435 [now 53-11-401]. The statute under which he was indicted and convicted pertains to the public generally, but the code sections last cited deal specifically with pharmacists and other registrants, and prescribe entirely different penalties and sanctions from those pertaining to the general public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dominy
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.