Velazquez v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 1 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. ““Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 , 63 S.Ct. 1241 , 87 L.Ed. 1519 , held that the portion of § 2(f) of the Act which created a presumption of transportation from the fact of possession, violated the due process clause and was unconstitutional. It does not follow from the decision that the remainder of § 2(f) is invalid. In Loeb v. Columbia Township Trustees, 179 U.S. 472 , at page 490, 21 S.Ct. 174 , at page 181, 45 L.Ed. 280 , the court said: ‘As one section of a statute may be repugnant to the Constitution without rendering the whole act void, so, one provision of a section may be invalid by reason of its not conforming to the Constitution, while all the other provisions may be subject to no constitutional infirmity. One part may stand, while another will fall, unless the two are so connected, or dependent on each other in subject-matter, meaning, or purpose, that the good cannot remain without the bad. The point is not whether the parts are contained in the same section, for the distribution into sections is purely artificial, but whether they are essentially and inseparably connected in substance, —whether the provisions are so interdependent that one cannot operate without the other.’ [See, also Berea College v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45, 55 , 29 S.Ct. 33 , 53 L.Ed. 81 .] “Because the portion of § 2(f) creating the unconstitutional presumption is clearly separable from the remainder of the section, the latter did not fall with the unconstitutional portion o”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Thoresen

2. ““(f) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or is a fugitive [sic] from justice to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, and the possession of a firearm or ammunition by any such person shall be presumptive evidence that such firearm or ammunition was shipped or transported or received, as the case may be, by such person in violation of this chapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 902 (f).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Thoresen