State v. Miller’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. “"Defendant's argument is not wholly without merit for, as he contends, if marijuana is a term sometimes applied to the hemp plant and sometimes only to describe the flowering tops which have a definite narcotic quality, then an Information charging defendant with the possession of marijuana fails to specify the possession of a narcotic with that particularity demanded by Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. "On the other hand, this argument fails to take into account the fact that to the lay mind, at least, the term marijuana means a narcotic. Of even greater importance here, defendant is charged with the possession of marijuana cigarettes. The smoking of marijuana cigarettes is synonymous with the use of a narcotic. Thus, from a common sense view, an Information charging a defendant with possession of marijuana cigarettes is tantamount to a charge of possessing narcotics. Such is the result reached by the Supreme Court of Utah in an exactly similar case, State v. Navaro, 83 Utah 6 , 26 P.2d 955 . I agree with the reasoning of the Court in that case. Accordingly, defendant's motion to quash is denied."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shearer

2. “since it is a plant in part harmless and in part narcotic, the Information which describes the cigarettes merely as marijuana cigarettes fails to specify possession of a narcotic with certainty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Shearer