494 So. 2d 255 - State v. McGee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Franklin court apparently equated mere “possession” with “possession with intent to sell.” This court cannot simply ignore the words “intent to sell.” To do so would unjustifiably abridge the statutes and usurp the power of the legislature to define what is or is not a crime. The mere possession of a “controlled substance” is a crime. § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Cannabis is a controlled substance. § 893.03(l)(c)3, Fla.Stat. (1985). One who possesses 20 grams or more is guilty of a third degree felony. § 893.13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Possession of “not more than 20 grams” is a first degree misdemeanor. § 893.-13(l)(e), Fla.Stat. (1985). Possession of “not more than 20 grams” is a first degree misdemeanor. § 893.13(l)(f), Fla. Stat. (1985). On the other hand, possession with intent to sell cannabis is a third degree felony. §§ 893.13(l)(a); 893.-03(l)(c)3, and 893.13(l)(a)2, Fla.Stat. (1985). The mere possession of cannabis is different from possession with intent to sell.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 509 So. 2d 1102 - McGee v. State

2. “Whether the possession with intent to sell any amount of cannabis is a third degree felony under the laws of this state?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 509 So. 2d 1102 - McGee v. State