78 Wash. 2d 553 - State v. Tanksley’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · 48 Wash. 2d 545 - In RE OLSEN v. Delmore · 78 Wash. 2d 9 - State v. Zornes · 78 Wash. 2d 201 - Anderson v. City of Seattle · 73 Wash. 2d 343 - Beach v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SNOHOMISH CTY.
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Dangerous Drug Act provided that: It shall be unlawful for a person ... to sell, amytal, luminal, veronal, barbital, acid diethylbarbituric, or any salts, derivatives, or compounds thereof, ... para-amino-benzene sulfonamide, súlfanilamid, sulfamidyl, prontylin, prontosil, neo prontosil, neo prontylin, edimalin, sulfonamid, . .. any amphetamine or any dextroamphetamine, ... or any other drug which is required by any applicable federal or state law or regulation to be used only on prescription, except upon the written or oral order or prescription of a physician, surgeon, dentist or veterinary surgeon....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Montague v. Vinzant“any drug found by federal law or regulation or Washington state pharmacy board regulation to have a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system or its hallucinogenic effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Montague v. Vinzant
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.