Cheatham v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 895 So. 2d 836 - Bush v. State · 691 So. 2d 948 - Herring v. State · 249 So. 2d 414 - Curry v. State · Loe v. Howard
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that [the] defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance [or property] and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the [property or item] involved was subject to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself [it] is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.