55 Kan. App. 2d 276 - State v. Brazzle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[n]ot only was Brazzle's knowledge of the contraband and intent to exercise control over the contraband questioned but so was his intent in possessing the contraband, i.e., whether he intended the drugs and contraband for personal use or for distribution.”

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

2. “a week prior to his arrest in this case at a location he had just left before the traffic stop in this case is highly probative of his intent to distribute the methamphetamine he possessed rather than to possess it for personal use.”

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

3. “the State's alleged failure to qualify him as an expert, for his lack of foundation to testify about the identity of the pills, and for the hearsay nature of the information upon which he relied.”

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