152 Ill. App. 3d 868 - People v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 147 Ill. 2d 326 - People v. Frieberg (1992), 194 Ill. 2d 75 - People v. Schmalz (2000)
74 state decisions
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 Ker v. California · 23 Ill. 2d 306 - The PEOPLE v. Nettles · 53 Ill. 2d 122 - People v. Bell · 20 Ill. 2d 331 - The PEOPLE v. Embry · 136 Ill. App. 3d 593 - People v. Burke
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Constructive possession exists without actual personal present dominion over the controlled substance but with an intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over it. [Citation.] As a result, narcotics being found on the premises under the control of defendant gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession by him which alone may be sufficient to sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of controlled substances. [Citations.] Mere access by other persons to the area where drugs are found is insufficient to defeat a charge of constructive possession. [Citation.] Moreover, exclusive possession does not mean that possession may not be joint. [Citations.] If two or more people share immediate and exclusive control or share the intention and power to exercise control, then each has possession.” (People v. Scott (1987), 152 Ill. App. 3d 868, 871 , 505 N.E.2d 42, 44-45 .)”
4 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.