Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 So. 2d 1237 - Ross v. State

528 So. 2d 1237 - Ross v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
5
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Gabriel v. State (1995), Pama v. State (1989)

1 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

901988199020002010decided

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 102 S. Ct. 969 - United States v. Security Industrial Bank · 96 Ill. App. 3d 880 - People v. Ayala · 41 Ill. App. 3d 261 - People v. Kline · 146 Ill. App. 3d 888 - People v. Kaludis · 94 Ill. App. 3d 130 - People v. Games

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

  1. “[A] visual examination of untested packets of this weight is insufficient to convict because the white powder contained therein may be milk sugar or any one of a vast variety of other white powdery chemical compounds not containing cocaine. Moreover, the fact that one or two packets containing cocaine are found among other packets containing similar-looking white powder is no assurance that the latter untested packets also contain cocaine in view of (1) the vast number of other chemical compounds which have a similar white powdery appearance, and (2) the fact that the material in the untested packets was not commingled with the material in the tested packets.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the fact that [the forensic chemist] broke open all of the above ninety-two [] packets, poured their contents into two envelopes, and thereby created two separate packets containing a mixture of cocaine weighing 38.8 grams cannot satisfy the [S]tate’s burden of proof on this issue. Obviously, the [S]tate’s representative cannot himself make his own packets of cocaine by combining separately wrapped packets of tested and untested material which in the aggregate weigh [the requisite statutory weight] or more; the packets which he tests and weighs must be the packets as seized from the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the random positive samples of suspect illegal pills or suspect marijuana is taken from a single packet or bag and is thus commingled with other similar-looking material. It is therefore a fair inference that the latter, similar-looking, commingled material is the same as the random positive sample taken therefrom. One cannot, however, make a similar inference where the untested material is not commingled with the random sample-as where the untested suspect illegal pills, marijuana, or cocaine is contained in a separately wrapped package from which a random sample is not taken for testing.”
    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.