Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 NJSUPER 18 - State v. Middleton

State v. Middleton’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
8
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2013

22 state decisions

10019761980199020002010decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (§ 201 of the Gun Control Act of 1968)

Relies on Spencer v. State of Texas a Bell · Barrett v. United States · Brewer v. Porch · State v. Meinken · Cowart v. Russell

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

  1. “... whether or not capable of being discharged.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Any person, having been convicted in this State or elsewhere of any crime enumerated in section 2A:151-5, whether or not armed with or having in his possession any firearm or dangerous instrument enumerated in section 2A: 151-5, ... or any person who has been convicted for the unlawful use, possession or sale of a controlled dangerous substance as defined in article 2 of P.L. 1970, c. 226 (C. 24:21-3 et seq.) who purchases, owns, possesses or controls any firearm of any of the said dangerous instruments, is guilty of a misdemeanor .... [repealed by L. 1978, c. 95, eff. Sept. 1, 1979].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(in words identical to those in the proposed New Jersey Penal Code, 2C:39-1(p) (see footnote 8 supra )), the legislative intent was that the weapon must be operable. For all the foregoing reasons I would hold that defendant's possession of an inoperable firearm was not sufficient for a conviction under N.J.S.A. 2A:151-8. I do not mean to imply, however, that the inoperable weapon might not have sustained a charge under that section of possessing a”
    1 later decision 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.