499 So. 2d 1189 - State v. Laino’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"La.R.S. 40:967(F) authorizes increased punishment for possession of `cocaine or related substances as provided in Schedule II(a)(4) of R.S. 40:964....' La.R.S. 40:964 Schedule II(A)(4) defines the particular substance as `[c]oca leaves, cocaine, ecognine ..,' together with its salts, isomers, derivatives or preparations, `which [are] chemically equivalent or identical with ... [coca leaves, cocaine or ecognine]....' * * * * * * La.R.S. 40:967(F) predicates punishment upon the weight in varying amounts of `grams ... of cocaine or related substances...,' as defined in Schedule II of R.S. 40:964. In the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, we read R.S. 40:967(F) no more broadly than the definition of cocaine provided by R.S. 40:964, Schedule II(A)(4). The defendant's punishment therefore depends upon grams of cocaine or related substances by weight and not upon the weight of the preparation or mixture containing the cocaine or related substance."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 569 So. 2d 5 - State v. Rodriguez

2. “We believe that the definition of cocaine is intended to include any preparation which contains cocaine or ecgonine ..., whether pure or cut with other ingestible material.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 538 So. 2d 752 - State v. Newton

3. “any preparation which contains cocaine, ... whether pure or cut with other ingestible material.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 569 So. 2d 5 - State v. Rodriguez