Seals v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When we interpret a statute we seek to effectuate the collective intent or purpose of the legislators who enacted the legislation.... [W]e must interpret an unambiguous statute literally, unless doing so would lead to an absurd result that the legislature could not possibly have intended.... Where the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Legislature must be understood to mean what it has expressed, and it is not for the courts to add or subtract from such a statute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Colyandro · Maxwell v. State

2. “[t]he literal meaning of the legislature's adulterant and dilutant definition is that any substance that is added to or mixed with a controlled substance, regardless of when, how, or why that substance was added, may be added to the aggregate weight of the controlled substance as an adulterant or dilutant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wright v. State · Jones v. State

3. “Chapter 481 of the Texas Health and Safety Code sets out the Texas Controlled Substances Act. This act provides higher penalties and longer sentences for those who manufacture, distribute, or possess a larger quantity of drugs. The gravamen of the offense is the quantity of the usable drug, not its purity. The federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act and the pertinent sentencing guidelines are structured in a similar manner. As the [United States] Supreme Court noted, "Congress adopted a `market-oriented' approach to punishing drug trafficking, under which the total quantity of what is distributed, rather than the pure drug involved, is used to determine the length of the sentences." Under the market approach, the penalties for drug trafficking are "graduated according to the weight of the drugs in whatever form they [are] found — cut or uncut, pure or impure, ready for wholesale or ready for distribution at the retail level." The Supreme Court explained that "Congress clearly intended the dilutant, cutting agent, or carrier medium to be included in the weight of those drugs for sentencing purposes. Inactive ingredients are combined with pure heroin or cocaine, and the mixture is then sold to consumers as a heavily diluted form of the drug." The Texas Legislature, like Congress, was concerned with consumable drug mixtures, mixtures that will or have reached citizens on the streets. Thus, the entire weight of drug mixtures which are usable in the chain of distribution are considered in det”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Wright v. State