Supreme Court of Vermont· 9/7/1982
State v. Rocheleau
Citations
- 451 A.2d 1144
- 142 Vt. 61
- 1982 Vt. LEXIS 605
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that seizure of marijuana fell within the exigent circumstances exception to warrant requirement when delaying seizure to wait for warrant would have likely resulted in destruction of evidence
- concluding that seizure of marijuana fell within the exigent circumstances exception to warrant requirement when delaying seizure to wait for warrant would have likely resulted in destruction of evidence
- state’s interest in regulating the use of marijuana prevails over appellant’s interest to use the drug in the practice of Tantric Buddhism
- marijuana, LSD, and hashish use by Aquarian Brotherhood Church
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Barney, Billings, Hill, Underwood, Peck
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court· 1990-04-17· cited 2,569×
- Carl Eric Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Carl Eric Olsen v. John Lawn, Administrator, Drug Enforcement AdministrationD.C. Circuit· 1989-06-20· cited 57×
- People v. DylaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1988-12-30· cited 54×
- State v. PeckCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin· 1988-02-25· cited 25×
- Whyte v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1984-02-06· cited 12×
- State v. GadsdenNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1997-08-04· cited 12×
- State v. DelaozSupreme Court of Vermont· 2011-03-18· cited 11×
- State v. BlakeHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals· 1985-01-31· cited 11×
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1980-04-15· cited 7,618×
- Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1969-06-23· cited 6,512×
- Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court· 1972-05-15· cited 3,250×
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court· 1963-06-17· cited 2,650×
- Leary v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1969-05-19· cited 1,672×
- United States v. Carolene Products Co.Supreme Court· 1938-04-25· cited 931×
- Lewis v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1967-01-09· cited 885×
- State v. BadgerSupreme Court of Vermont· 1982-07-13· cited 152×
- City of Kettering v. HollenOhio Supreme Court· 1980-12-23· cited 139×
- Timothy Leary v. United StatesFifth Circuit· 1967-09-29· cited 91×
- United States v. KuchDistrict of Columbia· 1968-07-01· cited 73×
- Spalding v. PrestonSupreme Court of Vermont· 1848-04-15· cited 52×
- State v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Vermont· 1981-09-01· cited 46×
- State v. SundbergAlaska Supreme Court· 1980-05-09· cited 42×
- United States v. Antonio R. SedilloNinth Circuit· 1974-04-23· cited 34×
- Sedillo v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1974-10-21· cited 29×
- Randall v. WyrickW.D. Missouri· 1977-12-02· cited 22×
- State v. DurlingSupreme Court of Vermont· 1981-12-04· cited 19×
- State v. BevinsSupreme Court of Vermont· 1981-11-10· cited 16×
- State v. MurraySupreme Court of Vermont· 1976-02-03· cited 14×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.