Priest v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 15 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) That the defendant kept or maintained a dwelling, in this case, Room 307...; and, (2) The dwelling was used to keep controlled substances in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act; namely, for the purposes of using these substances or for the purpose of keeping or delivering controlled substances; and, (3) The defendant acted knowingly with regard to such activity at Room 307 .... A person acts knowingly when the person knows or is aware of such activity .... These jury instructions captured the essence of the holding in Priest. We wish to emphasize that in all cases involving charges for ' maintaining” under § 4755(a)(5) the jury instructions should include some language setting forth the rule we articulated in Priest: "the State must offer evidence of some affirmative activity by the defendant to utilize the vehicle [building, dwelling, etc.] to facilitate the possession, delivery, or use of controlled substances.””

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

2. “It is unlawful for any person ... [k]now-ingly to keep or maintain any ... vehicle ... which is resorted to by persons using controlled substances ... for the purpose of using [controlled] substances or which is used for keeping or delivering them.... 3”

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