Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “both statutes are part of the same general law and can be read together without any conflict.... The legislature could not have intended second or subsequent offenses under § 44-53-370(e)(1) to include only the offense of marijuana trafficking when there is a specific statute which defines second or subsequent offenses as any drug offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Davis · State v. Dupree

2. “Respondent argues the references to second or subsequent offenses in § 44-53-370(e)(l) refer only to convictions of trafficking in marijuana, not other drug offenses. Relying on Rainey v. State, 307 S.C. 150 , 414 S.E.2d 131 (1992), respondent contends the definition set out in § 44-53-470 does not apply to § 44-53-370(e). In Rainey , the defendant was convicted under the former crack cocaine statute, S.C.Code Ann. § 44-53-375. His prior offense was for marijuana. Under former § 44-53-375(B), the prior offense had to be related to narcotic drugs. However, under the definition set out in § 44-53-470, a prior offense is any drug offense. Finding a conflict between § 44-53-470 and § 44-53-375(B) and applying the rule that the more recent legislation supersedes prior law, the Court held the defendant should not have been sentenced as a second offender. Here, §§ 44-53-370(e)(l) and 44-53 — 470 are not in conflict. Since there is no conflict, Rainey does not apply.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Dupree