Webb v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

126 federal appellate · 15 district · 9 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 185 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) “Does the first sentence of section 2 of the Harrison Act prohibit retail sales of morphine by druggists to persons who have no physician’s proscription, who have no order blank therefor, and who cannot obtain an order blank, because not of the class to which such blanks are allowed to be issued?” (2) “If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does this construction make unconstitutional the prohibition of such sale?” (3) “If a practicing and registered physician issues an order for morphine to an habitual user thereof, the- order not being issued by him in the course of professional treatment in the attempted cure of the habit, but being issued for the purpose of providing the user with morphine sufficient to keep him comfortable by maintaining his customary use, is such order a physician’s prescription under exception (b) of section 2?””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brown v. United States · Thompson v. United States

2. ““As to question three — to call such an order for the use of morphine a physician’s prescription would be so plain a perversion of meaning that no discussion of the subject is required. That question should be answered in the negative.” Webb v. United States, 249 U.S. 96 , 100, 39 S.Ct. 217 , 218.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Linder v. United States · Brown v. United States

3. ““Webb was a practicing physician and Goldbaum a retail druggist, in Memphis. It was Webb’s regular custom and practice to prescribe morphine for habitual users upon their application to him therefor. He furnished these ‘prescriptions,’ not after consideration of the applicant’s individual case, and in such quantities and with such direction as, in his judgment, would tend to cure the habit or as might be necessary or helpful in an attempt to break the habit, but without such consideration and rather in such quantities as the applicant desired for the sake of continuing his accustomed use. tloldbaum was familiar with such practice and habitually filled such prescriptions. Webb had duly registered and paid the special tax as required by section 1 of the act. Goldbaum had also registered and paid such tax and kept all records required by the law. Goldbaum had been provided with the blank forms contemplated by section 2 of the act for use in ordering morphine, and, by the use of such blank order forms, had obtained from the wholesalers, in Memphis, a stock of morphine. It had been agreed and understood between Webb and Goldbaum that Goldbaum should, by using such order forms, procure a stock of morphine, which morphine he should and would sell to those who desired to purchase and who came provided with Webb’s so-called prescriptions. It was the intent of Webb and Goldbaum that morphine should thus be furnished to the habitual users thereof by Goldbaum and without any physician’s ”

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