State v. Kantner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 55 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Proceeding from the proposition that marihuana is not a narcotic scientifically defined, appellants contend that the defining of the term narcotic so as to include marihuana and the inclusion of marihuana within the same class as the more harmful narcotic drugs is so unreasonable and arbitrary as to violate the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. The legislature has a broad power to define terms for a particular legislative purpose, and the courts, as a general rule of construction, are bound to follow legislative definitions of terms rather than commonly accepted dictionary, judicial or scientific definitions. We think the requirements of due process place some limitations on the manner in which a legislature may use words. If we believed that the use of the word • narcotic to include marihuana were so misleading as to confuse legislators in their law-making activities or to confuse persons of common understanding in their effort to determine whether the possession of marihuana constitutes a crime, it would clearly be our duty to declare the unconstitutionality of the statute[ 14 ] Inasmuch as the word “narcotic” in popular usage includes marihuana, it is no violation of the guarantee of due process of law for the legislature to employ such usage over the more precise usage favored by the scientific community. We think that appellants’ contentions concerning the legislative classification of marihuana are untenable. Appellants contend that t”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mallan · State v. Hatori

2. “[t]he legislature has a broad power to define terms for a particular legislative purpose, and the courts, as a general rule of construction, are bound to follow legislative definitions of terms rather than commonly accepted dictionary, judicial or scientific definitions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Erickson · Trs. of the Estate of Bishop v. Au

3. “right to the 'enjoyment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' includes smoking of marijuana,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cotton · United States v. Kiffer