State v. Dempsey’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably State v. Haynes (1971), Wilson v. City of Cincinnati (1976)
28 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 Leary v. United States · Tot v. United States · Hem v. United States · 67 Cal. 2d 64 - People v. Ross · Cotton v. United States
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only narcotic drug found in this case was a few minute particles which were mixed among the lint and debris of a jacket pocket. The proven fact of physical possession, in this instance, does not have a sufficient rational connection to the presumed fact that Dempsey knew that he possessed the particles to permit the use of a presumption as a substitute for proof of knowledgeable possession of a narcotic beyond a reasonable doubt. Common experience does not tend to indicate that one knows what is in the linty debris of his pockets. It is just as likely, if not more so, that one has no idea what is hidden there.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he element of scienter in a narcotics possession case consists of two branches; that the defendant knew that the substance was in his possession, and that he knew the substance was a narcotic.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hayward · State v. Byrd“[a] reasonably conducted routine stationhouse search, without a warrant, of a person who is being booked immediately prior to his entering a cell, for the purpose of inventorying and safekeeping his personal effects, is not unreasonable. Such procedure protects the prisoner and his valuables from destruction or loss during his incarceration. It also protects the state and its officers and agents by preventing weapons and contraband from entering the jail. This reasonable police procedure is not violative of any constitutional rights.”
1 later decision 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.