Vertner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “we reiterate our prior suggestion that the General Assembly revisit and perhaps revise Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-8.3(c). See id. at 1155 (Brook, C.J., concurring). In sum, the State's failure to prove that Bean's possession was”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bean v. State · Grim v. State

2. “it is difficult to imagine a set of facts that would satisfy the elements of reckless possession of paraphernalia,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bean v. State · Grim v. State

3. “Although the use of a crack pipe might well result in harm, the mere possession of a crack pipe will rarely, if ever, do so, whether to the possessor or to others. If the legislature's intent is indeed to criminalize the possession of items "to be used primarily for" ingesting, testing, or enhancing the effect of controlled substances, regardless of whether the possessor intends to use them for these purposes, then perhaps it should consider ... at the very least, criminalizing the "knowing" possession of these items instead.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Bean v. State · Bean v. State