7 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 21 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Sheriff, Humboldt County v. Lang.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sheriff, Humboldt County v. Lang Anchor | green | “the legislature enacted nrs 453.3395 to deter large-scale distribution of controlled substances, thus decreasing the number of persons potentially harmed by drug use.” | 3 |
| 2 | Cunningham v. State | green | “had the legislature tied the scheme of punishments directly to the five schedules, we might have found the argument that the unit of prosecution is based upon the schedules to have more force.” | 3 |
| 3 | Cunningham v. State | green | “there may be separate convictions and punishment for simultaneous possession of two or more” | 3 |
| 4 | United States v. Martin | green | “each specific narcotic drug cannot be the basis for a separate count.” | 3 |
| 5 | State v. Butler | green | “this single act of possession, which occurred at one time and in one place, cannot be the basis for multiple offenses.” | 3 |
| 6 | State v. Delfino | green | “possession of a substance or substances in schedule i or ii, with the exception of marijuana, is a single and separate offense.” | 3 |
| 7 | State v. Williams | green | “there is no indication that the legislature intended to authorize multiple punishment for the simultaneous possession of more than one narcotic.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.