Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 11 Md. App. 508 - Folk v. State

11 Md. App. 508 - Folk v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

128
cited by 128 later decisions
2
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

128 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Garrison v. State (1974), White v. State (2001)

128 state decisions

420197119801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · 9 Md. App. 15 - Metz v. State · Henson v. State · 7 Md. App. 505 - Scott v. State · 7 Md. App. 18 - Haley v. State

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

  1. “1) proximity between the defendant and the contraband, 2) the fact that the contraband was within the view or otherwise within the knowledge of the defendant, 3) ownership or some possessory right in the premises or the automobile in which the contraband is found, or 4) the presence of circumstances from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the defendant was participating with others in the mutual use and enjoyment of the contraband.”
    34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “1) the lack of proximity between the defendant and the contraband, 2) the fact that the contraband was secreted away in hidden places not shown to be within his gaze or knowledge or in any way under his control, and 3) the lack of evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that the defendant was participating with others in the mutual use of the contraband.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is well-settled that the proscribed possession of marihuana or of narcotic drugs under the Maryland law need not be sole possession. There may be joint possession and joint control in several persons. And the duration of the possession and the quantity possessed are not material, nor is it necessary to prove ownership in the sense of title.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.