Haney v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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. ““(a) It is unlawful for any person: (1) who is a practitioner knowingly or intentionally to distribute or dispense a controlled substance in violation of section 3.08. (Entitled ‘Prescriptions.’) * Hs * * * * (b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ford v. State · Merriman v. State

2. “(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 passage
   e.g. State v. Carr

3. ““Where a practitioner dispenses a controlled substance listed in Schedule II (as in the instant case) upon written prescription (not without written prescription) has he violated the provisions of said Section 3.08?” and at 387: “ . . . Under the applicable facts involving a Schedule II substance and evidence reflecting that in each instance the appellant issued a written prescription for preludins (phenmetrazine) to Garner, we can perceive no violation of Section 3.08 as enacted by the Legislature." Given the context in which Haney was decided, its question and answer are inapposite here. Where, as here, a practitioner of pharmacy, unlike a physician, is prohibited by § 3.08(a) from dispensing directly to an ultimate user, we decline to follow the majority response to the dissent in Haney , n. 1 at 388, discussing delivering and dispensing and, to the extent that it may be read to conflict with our holding regarding a pharmacist, it is considered not controlling.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Merriman v. State