Dowling v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[M]any foregoing cases indicate that practitioners are having difficulty analyzing operative facts to determine the appropriate aggravated offense denounced by the Texas Controlled Substances Act. Charging instruments allege criminal conduct pertaining to amphetamine ranging from simple “possession,” “possession with intent to manufacture” to actual “manufacture,” yet both prosecution and defense overlook that the facts reveal no more than suspects in or around a ‘dab” engaged in the process of “manufacturing” what is expected will turn out to be, but as the chemist here explained is not, a product “ready for distribution as amphetamine.” In short, there is no “manufactured” amphetamine in the “cooking” flask. (Emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Goforth v. State

2. “`Controlled Substance' means a drug, substance, or immediate precursor listed in Schedules I through V and Penalty Groups 1 through 4 of this Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Thompson v. State

3. “the amount of the controlled substance... by aggregate weight,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Thompson v. State