Queen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Daniels v. State (1988), United States v. Hinkle (2016)
1 federal appellate · 36 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 Ferguson v. State · Drumm v. State · Haecker v. State · Rasmussen v. State · Cruise v. State
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A constructive transfer may take several forms: the actor may constructively transfer narcotics to the intended recipient by entrusting the narcotics to an associate or the postal service for the delivery to the recipient, or the actor may place the contraband in a particular location and then advise the recipient of the location so that the recipient can retrieve the narcotics.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sims v. State · Warren v. State“did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally deliver a usable quantity of marihuana to Ben Neel in an amount more than one-fourth ounce and for remuneration by transferring the said marihuana into a motor vehicle within the care and control and custody of the said Ben Neel and by transferring the said marihuana to the actual custody of the said Ben Neel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sims v. State · Daniels v. State“We observe then that the Ferguson opinion stands for the proposition that an indictment for the delivery of a controlled substance must specify which type or types of delivery the State would rely upon and need not allege the precise manner by which a specified type of delivery was performed”) (emphasis in original). 5 . If the mere use of the word”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hartis v. State
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.