People v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2002 · most notably 64 Cal. 2d 504 - People v. Leal (1966), 4 Cal. 3d 747 - People v. Fein (1971)
2 federal appellate · 37 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 61 Cal. 2d 861 - People v. Cruz · 113 Cal. App. 2d 253 - People v. Cole · 223 Cal. App. 2d 119 - People v. Aguilar · People v. Anderson · 201 Cal. App. 2d 462 - People v. Marich
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The logic of this contention would convert evidence of recent past possession of narcotics into proof of present possession of narcotics .... Were we to accept evidence of recent past possession of narcotics as equivalent to proof of present possession of narcotics, then we could charge every addict who was currently [under the influence of narcotics] with possession of a narcotic, since he [or she] must have had possession of the narcotic in the recent past in order to come under its influence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We conclude that possession of a minute crystalline residue of narcotic not intended for consumption or sale and useless for either of these purposes is insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for known possession of a narcotic.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he criminal law is engaged in a continuous process of drawing lines, and in the enforcement of offenses involving possession of narcotics fixed lines appear to be uavoidable. [Citations.] To this end we believe the Legislature has established helpful guidelines in distinguishing the crimes of possession of narcotics paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, 11555) and of being under the influence of narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, 11721), both misdemeanors, from the more serious crime of possessing the narcotic itself (Health & Saf. Code, 11500), a felony. This distinction is pertinent to the present case where the evidence shows that defendant was in possession of a narcotics kit and under the influence of narcotics; but does not support the charge that he knowingly possessed heroin.”
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.