United States v. Caseer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “§ 25.72. Schedules of controlled substances (a) General. In accordance with sections 3 and 4 of the act (35 P.S. §§ 780-103 and 780-104), this section lists all controlled substances. Section 4 of the act (35 P.S. § 780-104) designates specific substances for inclusion under the five schedules. The substances listed in this section include those listed by section 4 of the act (35 P.S. § 780-104) and those that have been added by the Secretary after consultation with the Drug, Device and Cosmetic Board. (b) Schedule I. In determining that a substance comes within this schedule, the Secretary will find: a high potential for abuse; no currently accepted medical use in the United States; and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. The following controlled substances are included in this schedule: (6) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, a material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances including the salts, isomers and salts of isomers: (xxvi) Cathinone.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 224 - Commonwealth v. Mohamud

2. “The case at bar differs from most fair-warning cases in that the criminal provision at issue here is not ambiguous in the traditional sense. Neither party has challenged the fact that 21 C.F.R. § 1308.11 (f)(3) on its face explicitly establishes cathinone as a Schedule I controlled substance. Rather, the asserted constitutional defect of this provision is that through the definition of prohibited conduct by the use of an obscure scientific term, i.e., “cathinone,” persons of ordinary intelligence, even after reading the statutory text, would be unaware that khat is a controlled substance. In other words, the controlled substances schedule’s vagueness derives not from the language’s imprecision but rather from the schedule essentially being written in a language foreign to persons of ordinary intelligence. When a statute is precise on its face yet latently vague, the danger of persons being caught unaware of the criminality of their conduct is high.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2010 Pa. Super. 224 - Commonwealth v. Mohamud

3. “When a statute on its face is vague or overbroad, it at least gives a potential defendant some notice, by virtue of this very characteristic, that a question may arise as to its coverage, and that it may be held to cover his contemplated conduct. When a statute on its face is narrow and precise, however, it lulls the potential defendant into a false sense of security, giving him no reason even to suspect that conduct clearly outside the scope of the statute as written will be retroactively brought within it by an act of judicial construction.”

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