State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 848 (§ 408 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Brown v. Ohio · State v. Golding · Johnson v. Righetti · United States v. Alaska
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where ... the [gun is] not found on the defendant's person, the state must proceed on the theory of constructive possession, that is, possession without direct physical contact. ... Where the defendant is not in exclusive possession of the premises where the [gun is] found, it may not be inferred that [the defendant] knew of the presence of the [gun] and had control of [it], unless there are other incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an inference.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There are two types of possession, actual possession and constructive possession.... Actual possession requires the defendant to have had direct physical contact with the [gun].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to have physical possession or otherwise to exercise dominion or control over tangible property ....”
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.