Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 646 So. 2d 995 - State v. Gordon

646 So. 2d 995 - State v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2017

11 state decisions

60199420002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · United States v. Ross · Texas v. Brown · Horton v. California

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

  1. “The intent to distribute may be established by proving circumstances surrounding defendant's possession which give rise to reasonable inferences of intent to distribute. Several factors from which intent to distribute may be inferred have been enumerated in Louisiana's jurisprudence. Those factors include: (1) that defendant ever distributed or attempted to distribute narcotics; (2) that the narcotics were in a form usually associated with narcotics possessed for distribution to others; (3) that the amount was such as to create a presumption of intent to distribute; (4) of expert or other testimony that such an amount as found on the defendant is inconsistent with personal use only; and (5) of any paraphernalia, such as baggies or scales, evidencing an intent to distribute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “sufficient to convict depends on the peculiar facts of each case. State v. Gordon, 646 So.2d at 1002 . Several factors may be considered in determining whether or not a defendant exercised”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally ... [t]o... possess with intent to ... distribute... a controlled dangerous substance ... classified in Schedule II.”
    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.