State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “jurisdictional defects and defenses are not waived by entering a guilty plea.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Danforth · State Ex Rel. Green v. Moore

2. “Although he [the defendant] has directed the court's attention to numerous studies which comment on the harmlessness of marihuana, there are, however, other authorities which take a contrary view regarding the hazards involved in using marihuana. The present state of knowledge of the effects of marihuana is still incomplete and is marked by much disagreement and controversy. In United States v. Carolene Products, [ 304 U.S. 144 , 58 S.Ct. 778 , 82 L.Ed. 1234 ] supra, the court stated at 153-154, 58 S.Ct. at 784 : "Where the existence of a rational basis for legislation whose constitutionality is attacked depends upon facts beyond the sphere of judicial notice, such facts may properly be made the subject of judicial inquiry.... But by their very nature such inquiries, where the legislative judgment is drawn in question, must be restricted to the issue whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support for it." A body of knowledge does exist upon which the legislature could have rationally relied in deciding to classify marihuana in schedule I. In light of the fact that we are dealing with a debatable medical issue, we cannot conclude that the legislature acted arbitrarily or irrationally in placing marihuana in schedule I....”

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

3. ““This state is thoroughly committed to the proposition that the unconstitutionality of an ordinance or statute on which a prosecution is based cannot be waived. The invalidity of such an act on constitutional grounds goes to the subject matter of the prosecution and may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even by a collateral attack after conviction. Ex parte Lerner, 281 Mo. 18 , 218 S.W. 331 ; Ex parte Taft, 284 Mo. 531 , 225 S.W. 457 ; Ex parte Smith, 135 Mo. 223, 229 , 36 S.W. 628 , 33 L.R.A. 606 ; Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471 , 65 S.Ct. 363 , 89 L.Ed. 398 ; and State v. Finley, 187 Mo.App. 72 , 172 S.W. 1162 .” 563 S.W.2d 22 -23.”

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