United States v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 10 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[RJeading the statutory words “a controlled substance” as meaning “all controlled substances possessed simultaneously” would greatly restrict judges and their sentencing capacity. In a case involving simultaneous possession of a large number of different drugs, the trial judge would be limited in sentencing to the punishment set by statute for possession of only one drug. This would hardly allow the judge to tailor the penalty to fit the seriousness of the offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Dillon · United States v. DeJesus

2. “Congress intended, in enacting 21 U.S.C. § 841 , to provide trial judges with maximum flexibility in sentencing, and therefore intended to permit separate punishment for possession of each controlled substance. Simultaneous possession of marijuana and of quaaludes constitutes two acts which violate one statute, and consecutive sentencing is appropriate.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cunningham v. State · 440 So. 2d 505 - Watts v. State

3. ““* * * The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Id. at 304 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Ohio App. 3d 78 - State v. Hedelsky · State v. Delfino