606 So. 2d 586 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A. Any person who violates a felony provision of R.S. 40:966 through R.S. 40:970 of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances law while on any property used for school purposes by any school, within one thousand feet of any such property, or while on a school bus shall, upon conviction, be punished in accordance with Subsection E. B. Lack of knowledge that the prohibited act occurred on or within one thousand feet of school property shall not be a defense. C. For the purposes of this Section: (1) "School" means any public or private elementary, secondary, vocational-technical school, or public or private college or university in Louisiana. (2) "School property" means all property used for school purposes, including but limited to school playgrounds, as well as any building or area owned by the state or by a political subdivision and used or operated as a playground or recreational facility and all parks and recreational areas administered by the office of state parks. D. A violation of this Section within one thousand feet of school property shall not include an act which occurs entirely within a private residence wherein no person seventeen years of age or under was present. E. (1) On a first conviction, whoever violates a provision of this Section shall be punished by the imposition of the maximum fine and not less than one-half nor more than the maximum term of imprisonment authorized by the applicable provisions of R.S. 40:966 through R.S. 40:970, with the minimum manda”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Curtis · 648 So. 2d 872 - State v. Brown

2. “[A] drug free zone around our nation's schools could not be realized if the protection the statute affords school children ends when the final bell rings each day. The elementary and secondary schools are places where children congregate before and after school hours. Moreover, any drug related activity in the vicinity of a school increases the likelihood that drugs would become accessible to the children who attend the school. If the drug seller uses a place within the protected area to carry on illegal activity, his customers can decide to buy drugs while children are present.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Williams

3. “The challenged statute is clearly and readily understandable, gives adequate notice of what conduct is proscribed and provides adequate standards for determining guilt or innocence of the accused. Any reasonable person can understand the statute proscribes possessing and trafficking controlled dangerous substances while within 1,000 feet of school property .... State v. Brown, 94-1290 at pp. 5-6, 648 So.2d at 876 (quoting State v. Brown, 606 So.2d 586, 588 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1992), writ denied, 92-2945 (La.1/28/94), 630 So.2d 786 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 811 So. 2d 955 - State v. Holmes