Casbah Inc’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
8 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Town Tobacconist v. Kimmelman (1983), Curtis v. State (2001)
8 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Payton v. New York · Buckley v. Valeo · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Grayned v. City of Rockford
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A fair reading of the statute as a whole indicates that the intent referred to is that of the person alleged to have violated the statute. What seems at first glance to be a deficiency in draftsmanship is explained by the fact that the definitional section is intended to draw four categories of persons (manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers and purchasers) within the reach of the legislation. Sections 3 and 4, in defining substantive offenses, provide clarity by linking the requirement of intent with the person whose activity is forbidden: “It shall be unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia. [Section 3.] It shall be unlawful for any person to deliver, possess with intent to deliver, or manufacture with intent to deliver, drug paraphernalia. [Section 4.]” In sum, the Nebraska statute adequately defines the mental state required to render an item drug paraphernalia and refers to the intent of the person charged with violation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. New England Accessories Trade Association, Inc., Kanko, Inc., and Stuart Tulchinsky v. City of Nashua, New England Accessories Trade Association, Inc., Kanko, Inc., and Stuart Tulchinsky v. State of New Hampshire and Gregory H. Smith in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire · State v. Connely“It is unlawful for any person to place in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication any advertisement, knowing or under circumstances where one reasonably should know that the purpose of the advertisement, in whole or in part, is to promote the sale of objects designed or intended for use as drug paraphernalia.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even the illicit dealer, however, is not held legally responsible ... for guessing what is in the mind of a buyer. The seller is safe as long as he does not actually know the buyer's purpose and as long as the objective facts that are there for him to observe do not give fair notice that illegal use will ensue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.