Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 762 NE2D 170 - Hatcher v. State

Hatcher v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill · Vance v. Bradley · United States v. Butler · Stephenson v. State · United National Insurance v. DePrizio

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

  1. “(1) the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container. It does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for his own wse or the preparation, compounding, packaging, or labeling of a controlled substance: (A) by a practitioner as an incident to his administering or dispensing of a controlled substance in the course of his professional practice; or (B) by a practitioner, or by his authorized agent under his supervision, for the purpose of, or as an incident to, research, teaching, or chemical analysis and not for sale[.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The General Assembly is not constitutionally, or otherwise, prohibited from enacting extremely poor public policy into law. The legislature, in its eminent wisdom, is at liberty to do so, so long as neither the United States Constitution nor the Indiana Constitution is violated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[the legislature could not have intended to enact a statute allowing one to be subjected to criminal liability for possession of the ingredients of methamphetamine, but to be excluded from liability if the ingredients were used to manufacture the finished product.”
    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.