Flamer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably 238 N.J. Super. 8 - Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co. (1989), Bailey v. State (1987)
2 federal appellate · 29 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 State v. Watson · Webster v. State · The People v. Urban · State v. Edell · Wiggins v. State
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he requirement that possession must be "exclusive," in order to incriminate, does not mean that the possession must necessarily be separate from all others. An "exclusive possession" may be the joint possession of two or more acting in concert. Where the only persons having control of, or access to, the stolen property are the defendant and his co-conspirators, joint possession of the stolen property may incriminate the defendant as well as his confederates.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the instruction to the jury, the trial court charged that if the jury found that the specified property was stolen and that this defendant soon thereafter was in possession of that property ... then that possession is prima facie evidence of the commission of the larceny and of the burglary. 68”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lecates v. State · Lecates v. State““At the close of the evidence or at such earlier time as the court reasonably directs, any party may file written requests that the court instruct the jury on the law as set forth in the requests Except with special permission of the court, no party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before or at a time set by the court . . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Edwards v. State
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.