State v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably State v. Ortega (1991), State v. Sanders (1994)
54 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 801 (§ 101 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 822 (§ 302 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 827 (§ 307 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 829 (§ 309 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 842 (§ 402 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Connally v. General Construction Co. · Iannelli v. United States · Yates v. United States · Stromberg v. People of State of California · United States v. International Minerals & Chemical Corp.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) A prescription for a controlled substance to be effective must be issued for a legitimate purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his [or her] professional practice. The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of section three hundred eight, article three of the Act and the person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law relating to controlled substances,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The harm involved in the substantive offense [of] trafficking in controlled substances ... is not restricted to the parties to the agreement. The parties to the agreement to traffic are usually not the only persons who participate in commission of the substantive offense: the controlled substances are passed on, as happened here, to other purchasers. The agreement that attends the substantive offense does seem to pose those threats to society that the law of conspiracy seeks to avert. An agreement to commit trafficking may very well produce agreements to engage in a more general pattern of criminal conduct as the controlled substances are diverted from their legitimate medical uses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Silvas“When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sanders
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.