Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1999 UT 79 - State v. Layman

State v. Layman’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
October 2025
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably State v. Boyd (2001), State v. Ashcraft (2015)

25 state decisions

1401999200020102020decided

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 State v. James · State v. Brown · Soter's, Inc. v. Deseret Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n · State v. Johnson · State v. Fox

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

  1. “'Possession' ... means the joint or individual ownership, control, occupancy, holding, retaining, belonging, {or] maintaining ... of controlled substances and includes individual, joint, or group possession.... For a person to be a possessor ... of a controlled substance, it is not required that the person be shown to have individually possessed, used, or controlled the substance, but it is sufficient if it is shown that ... the controlled substance is found in a place or under circumstances indicating that the person had the ability and the intent to exercise dominion and control over it.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “there was a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the drugs or paraphernalia to permit a factual inference that the defendant had the power and the intent to exercise control over the drugs or paraphernalia.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “overturn a conviction for insufficient evidence when it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged for the fact-finder to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime.”
    2 later decisions 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.