New England Accessories Trade Ass'n v. City of Nashua’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 1 · 1982
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Stoianoff v. Montana (1983), State v. Dunn (1983)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Alderman v. United States · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object concerning its use; (2) Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any controlled substance; (3) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this chapter; (4) The proximity of the object to controlled substances; (5) The existence of any residue of controlled substances on the object; (6) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of the owner, or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to a person or persons whom the owner or person in control knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of this chapter; the innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of this chapter shall not prevent a finding that the object is intended for use, or designed for use as drug paraphernalia; (7) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use; (8) Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain or depict its use; (9) National and local advertising concerning its use; (10) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale; (11) Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a legitimate supplier of like or related items in the community, such as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products; (12) Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object or o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Sun Na Lee““The fact that the statute attempts to guide such personnel in their enforcement duties lessens, rather than increases, the danger of arbitrary enforcement. “The enumerated factors themselves pose no constitutional problem, and are valuable guides in determining what items are prohibited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dunn“purpose ... in part, is to promote the sale of ... drug paraphernalia”
1 later decision 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.