57 N.C. App. 602 - State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2009 · most notably State v. Perry (1986), State v. Diaz (1986)
3 federal appellate · 47 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 United States v. Agurs · Keeble v. United States · Bradley v. J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc. · South Dakota v. Nebraska · Wainwright v. Stone
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear that the 1979 amendments to G.S. 90-95 by the addition of subsections (h) and (i) are responsive to a growing concern regarding the gravity of illegal drug activity in North Carolina and the need for effective laws to deter the corrupting influence of drug dealers and traffickers. Prior to the enactment of the 1979 amendment, the provisions of G.S. 90-88 before 1973 and thereafter G.S. 90-95(a)(l), (2), and (3), have been interpreted by the courts of North Carolina. The distinct acts denounced by the statute (manufacture, sell, deliver, possess) have been held to constitute separate and distinct offenses. State v. Aiken, 286 N.C. 202 , 209 S.E.2d 763 (1974); State v. Thornton, 283 N.C. 513 , 196 S.E.2d 701 (1973); State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191 , 195 S.E.2d 481 (1973); State v. Salem, 50 N.C.App. 419 , 274 S.E.2d 501 , disc. rev. denied, 302 N.C. 401 , 279 S.E.2d 355 (1981); State v. Brown, 20 N.C.App. 71 , 200 S.E.2d 666 , cert. denied, 284 N.C. 617 , 202 S.E.2d 274 (1973).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any person who . . . transports, or possesses in excess of 10 pounds (avoirdupois) of marijuana shall be guilty of a felony which felony shall be known as “trafficking in marijuana” and if the quantity of such substance involved . . . [i]s in excess of 10 pounds, but less than 50 pounds, such person shall be punished as a Class H felon and shall be sentenced to a minimum term of 25 months and a maximum term of 30 months in the State’s prison and shall be fined not less than five thousand dollars ($ 5,000).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the burden was upon the defendant to show that the stalks were mature or that any other part of the matter or material seized did not qualify as `marijuana' as defined by G.S. 90-87(16).”
2 later decisions 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.