Dorador v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Carfield v. State (1982), Crozier v. State (1986)
32 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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Brewer v. United States · Fay v. People of State of New York Bove · Seaboard Shipping Corp. v. Moran Inland Waterways Corp. · United States v. John E. Test, Francis R. Salazar v. United States of America, United States of America v. Enrique Sandoval Chavez, United States of America v. Cameron David Bishop
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Realizing that the distinction between a specific intent crime and a general intent crime is apparently troublesome, we can perhaps clarify it by stating it in a somewhat different way. When the statute sets out the offense with only a description of the particular unlawful act, without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, the trial judge asks the jury whether the defendant intended to do the outlawed act. Such intention is general intent. When the statutory definition of the crime refers to an intent to do some further act or attain some additional consequence, the offense is considered to be a specific intent crime and then that question must be asked of the jury.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Britt v. State · Bryan v. State“[I]t is unlawful for any person to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Knowledge or scienter is essential to a general intent crime. An accused must, of course, know that he is delivering a controlled substance.”
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.