State v. Linson’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (§ 101 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)
Relies on Keener v. United States · United States v. Romm · State v. Nelson · State v. Dillon · United States v. Kuchinski
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The presence of child pornography in temporary internet and orphan files on a computer's hard drive is evidence of prior possession of that pornography, though of course it is not conclusive evidence of knowing possession and control of the images, just as mere presence in a car from which the police recover contraband does not, without more, establish actual or constructi[ve] possession of the contraband by a passenger.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ballantyne“[A] computer user who intentionally accesses child pornography images on a website 'gains actual control over the images, just as a person who intentionally browses child pornography in a print magazine”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ballantyne“that the presence of cached images or files, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish that a defendant knowingly possessed those cached images or files.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Ballantyne
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.