State v. Morrison’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
35 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Dennis v. Dennis · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen · Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Department · Estrella v. Brown
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] trial court ... should not disturb an indictment if there is some evidence establishing each element of the crime to make out a prima facie case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“should evaluate whether, viewing the evidence and the rational inferences drawn from that evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a grand jury could reasonably believe that a crime occurred and that the defendant committed it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“although [a person] lacks 'physical or manual control' [of the CDS], the circumstances permit a reasonable inference that he has knowledge of its presence, and intends and has the capacity to exercise physical control or dominion over it during a span of time.”
2 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.