227 So. 2d 313 - Eckroth v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

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

1. “"[W]e hold that taking a `drag' from another's pipe filled with illegal marijuana cannot be distinguished with reason and logic from taking a `drink' from another's bottle filled with illegal liquor, for both situations evince a mere `passing control, fleeting and shadowy in its nature'. "It is noted that there is a split in the authorities as to what is sufficient to constitute possession; however, the majority of the jurisdictions follow the reasoning of the Williams case, supra [3] , and we join the majority as we feel that they have based there decisions on the more valid reasoning."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 238 So. 2d 75 - State v. Eckroth

2. “was charged with unlawfully possessing and having in his control, a certain narcotic drug, to-wit: cannabis sativa, commonly known as marijuana. He was tried by a jury and found guilty of the charge. On appeal, the District Court reversed the conviction finding the evidence insufficient to show that defendant had possession or control of marijuana. The Court reviewed decisions from other states involving possession of illegal liquor and stated: [2]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 238 So. 2d 75 - State v. Eckroth

3. “"398.03 Narcotic drugs legal only as provided in this chapter. — It is unlawful for any person to manufacture, possess, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, dispense, or compound any narcotic drug, except as authorized in this chapter."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 238 So. 2d 75 - State v. Eckroth