Davis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 2 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The court said (279 F.2d at p. 578): “If the Revenue Act of 1939 be regarded as a technical repeal and reenactment, in modified form, of the Harrison Narcotic Act, as theretofore amended, it avails the defendant nothing. In keeping with the spirit, at least, of Rule 7 (e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., it was appropriate to cite the statute which makes unlawful the conduct in which, it is charged, the conspirators planned to engage. The rule expressly provides, however, that error in the citation, or its entire omission, does not vitiate the indictment unless the error or omission has misled the defendant to his prejudice. There was no showing here that the defendant, or his counsel, was in any way misled, much less prejudiced, by the reference to the Harrison Act, rather than to the appropriate sections of the current code.””

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

2. ““Nor does this miscitation make illegal the sentence imposed though it exceeds the maximum permissible under 18 U.S.C. § 371 . Congress, when it enlarged the penalties, and prescribed minimum prison terms, for narcotic offenses, issued a command which is binding upon the courts. The District Court was bound to impose sentence under 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237 , rather than under 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 , and the resulting sentence is not illegal.” (At p. 578 of 279 F.2d.)”

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