Davila v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably Daniels v. State (1988), Whaley v. State (1986)
25 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 State v. McHorse · Rasmussen v. State · 161 W. Va. 40 - State v. Ellis · State v. Guyott
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he transfer of a controlled substance either belonging to the defendant or under his direct or indirect control, by some other person or manner at the instance or direction of the defendant....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wallis v. State · Whaley v. State“(8) 'Deliver' or 'delivery' means the actual or constructive transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance ... whether or not there is an agency relationship.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The evidence ... fails to show that [Davila] had direct or indirect control of the contraband prior to its delivery, and does not show that the contraband was delivered by Cosme at [Davila's] instance or direction ... At most the evidence shows that [Davila] merely relayed Chism's offer to buy to her husband Cosme. Cosme negotiated both the quantity and the price before making the delivery. [Davila] made no response when Chism offered to buy "four." The fact that she might have understood what he meant by his cryptic offer is no proof that the contraband was under her direct or indirect control prior to its delivery by Cosme to Chism. Furthermore, [Davila's] act in merely relaying an offer from buyer to seller is not sufficient to prove that the seller acted at [her] "instance or direction".... There is no proof that [Davila] had any control over Cosme's actions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Swinney 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.