Commonwealth v. Leis’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Klein v. Catalano (1982), 49 Ill. 2d 338 - The People v. McCabe (1971)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 78 state decisions — followed in 18 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Robinson v. State of California · Trop v. Dulles · Skinner v. State of Oklahoma Williamson
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““a) Section 11054 (d)( 10), which includes ‘marijuana,’ as defined in section 11018, among ‘controlled substances’ listed in Schedule I, which substances may be referred to as ‘narcotics’ by reference in any provision of law outside of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, pursuant to the provisions of section 11032. “b) Section 11357 (a), which provides that ‘every person who possesses any concentrated cannabis shall be punished by imprisonment’ for up to five years. “c) Section 11357 (b), which provides that ‘every person who possesses not more than one.. .ounce of marijuana other than concentrated cannabis, is guilty of a misdemean- or and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100).' “d) Section 11357 (c), which provides that ‘every person who possesses more than one .. .ounce of marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, shall be punished by imprisonment’ for up to six months or by a fine of up to $500, or both. “e) Section 11358, which provides, ‘(a) Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes any marijuana or any part thereof.. .shall be punished by imprisonment’ for up to 10 years, with a one-year minimum sentence before eligibility for parole; and upon proof of one of the designated prior felony convictions, for up to 20 years, with a two-year minimum sentence before eligibility for parole, and upon two or more of such prior felony convictions, for up to life imprisonment”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . . All of these substances [marihuana and the narcotics scientifically defined] are “mind-altering” drugs. The fact that some are more potent or more dangerous than others does not render the classification arbitrary. To some degree they are all capable of producing psychotic disorders, states of intoxication and psychological dependency, and consequently present some danger to the health and safety of the community. We do not think that the classification of marihuana with the others is arbitrary or irrational. Commonwealth v. Leis, 355 Mass. 189, 197 , 243 N.E.2d 898, 905 (1969).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Kantner“Unless the act of the Legislature cannot be supported upon any rational basis of fact that reasonably can be conceived to sustain it, the court has no power to strike it down as violative of the Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ravin v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.