163 N.C. App. 495 - State v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Brown · State v. Stancil · State v. Franklin · State v. Matias · State v. Butler
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[u]pon review of a motion to dismiss, the court determines whether there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, of each essential element of the offense charged and of the defendant being the perpetrator of the offense. State v. Stancil, 146 N.C. App. 234, 244 , 552 S.E.2d 212, 218 (2001), aff'd as modified, 355 N.C. 266 , 559 S.E.2d 788 (2002) (per curiam); State v. Compton, 90 N.C. App. 101, 103 , 367 S.E.2d 353, 355 (1988). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” State v. Franklin, 327 N.C. 162, 171 , 393 S.E.2d 781, 787 (1990).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The statute thus prohibits the keeping or maintaining of a vehicle only when it is used for “keeping or selling” controlled substances. As stated by our Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, the word “ ‘keep’... denotes not just possession, but possession that occurs over a duration of time.” Thus, the fact “that an individual within a vehicle possesses marijuana on one occasion cannot establish . . . the vehicle is ‘used for keeping’ marijuana; nor can one marijuana cigarette found within the car establish that element.” Likewise, the fact that a defendant was in his vehicle on one occasion when he sold a controlled substance does not by itself demonstrate the vehicle was kept or maintained to sell a controlled substance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]vidence which places an accused within close juxtaposition to a narcotic drug under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that he knew of its presence may be sufficient to justify the jury in concluding that it was in his possession.”
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.