United States v. Santore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

125 federal appellate · 9 district · 39 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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]t that moment it was too late for them, consistent with the success of their mission, to have retreated and obtained a new warrant.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Teague · United States v. Maneti

2. ““The Government argues that Narducci’s momentary grasp of the package constituted ‘possession’ of it by him, and that at that moment the crimes with which he and Tarlentino were charged were completed. We cannot agree. A statutory presumption is valid only where there is a rational and not unreasonable connection between the ultimate fact to be presumed and the fact proved. Yee Hem v. United States, 1925, 268 U.S. 178 , 45 S.Ct. 470 , 69 L.Ed. 904 , supra. The crime punishable under section 174 is not the possession of narcotics, but rather the transporting, concealing, receiving, buying or selling of narcotics; and, consequently, in order to make the statutory' presumption contained in that section meet the test of validity we must define ‘possession’ as used therein so as to include only that type of control from which it could not unreasonably be inferred that the possessor was going to commit one or more of the specified acts which have been declared criminal. Narducci’s grasp of the package was clearly not such possession, for he voluntarily released it one brief moment later.” 290 F.2d 64 -65. (Italics ours.) 5”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Pellot Pérez · United States v. Gitlitz

3. “The same considerations apply to Nar-ducci, save for the contention that his grasp of the package, for a period testified by the government agent to have been “less than half a minute,” constituted “possession” and thus relieved the government of the need of proving knowledge of the narcotics’ source. To hold this would give the act of touching an unwarranted talismanic effect. Possession implies ability to exercise control; Narducci was thwarted before achieving this. Decisions, both by divided courts, that fingerprint evidence is enough to permit an inference of possession, Stoppelli v. United States, 9 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 391, 393 , certiorari denied 1950, 340 U.S. 864 , 71 S.Ct. 88 , 95 L.Ed. 631 ; United States v. Pisano, 7 Cir., 1951, 193 F.2d 361, 365 , are not to the contrary; in such cases there was no evidence that the contact was but momentary, as there was here. 36”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moreau v. State