Dickerson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 101 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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has been called a golden rule of statutory interpretation that unreasonableness of the result produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which would produce a reasonable result.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lewis v. State · Motor Vehicle Administration v. Chamberlain

2. ““The instant case involves marihuana that has been ‘laced’ with phencyclidine (PCP) — that is, the marihuana has been dipped into, or sprayed with, PCP. Although this process does ■ not involve chemical changes in either of the substances used, it mechanically binds the two together in a way that renders it impossible, in any practical sense, to separate them. This fact places this case more toward the end of the spectrum involving a controlled substance or compound that chemically contains another controlled dangerous substance, e.g., heroin containing molecules of mor phine, than toward the other end represented by separate controlled dangerous substances separately packaged and available for separate sale, distribution, or use. “An analogy may be drawn to the making of a martini by mixing together gin and vermouth, two alcoholic beverages. Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol., 1989 Cum.Supp.) Article 27, § 400A makes it a civil offense for ‘any person under the age of 21 years to have in his possession ... any alcoholic beverage.... ’ Surely, if a person under 21 is detected drinking a martini, he is not guilty of two offenses. “Taking a common sense view of the matter, we are simply not persuaded that the legislature intended separate prosecutions and punishments for possession of PCP and possession of marihuana where the two substances have been, for all practical purposes, irrevocably joined as one.””

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

3. “(1) To manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or to possess a controlled dangerous substance in sufficient quantity to reasonably indicate under all circumstances an intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance.... (b) Any person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section with respect to: (2) Phencyclidine ... is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or a fine of not more than $20,000, or both. (f)(1) If a person violates subsection (a)(1) of this section and the violation involves any of the following controlled dangerous substances, in the amounts indicated, the person is subject to the penalties provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection upon conviction: ... (vi) 16 ounces or more of phencyclidine in liquid form.... (3)(i) A person convicted of violating paragraph (1) of this subsection is guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced as otherwise provided for in this section, except that it is mandatory upon the court to impose no less than 5 years’ imprisonment, and neither that term of imprisonment nor any part of it may be suspended.”

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