243 So. 2d 396 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 1996 · most notably 249 So. 2d 414 - Curry v. State (1971), Warren v. State (1973)
1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Cooper v. State of California · 214 So. 2d 589 - Armstrong v. State · 224 So. 2d 441 - Godbee v. State · 236 So. 2d 408 - Wright v. State · 222 So. 2d 141 - Gordon 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * The guilt or innocence, prison sentence or acquittal, of the defendant depends entirely upon the identification of the contents of the boxes as marijuana. This substance was relevant, material, competent and, in fact, necessary evidence to defendant's conviction. Under this circumstance we are of the opinion that due process of law requires, upon the court's attention being directed thereto by motion, that the analysis of the substance not be left totally within the province of the state chemist. The defendant having made proper and timely motion for a portion of the substance, it should have been made available to his attorney, as an officer of the court, and under such safeguards as the trial court deemed necessary, for inspection and analysis. We hasten to add that this opinion is limited to the alleged possession or sale of a prohibited substance where the outcome of the case is dependent upon its identification as contraband. We conclude, therefore, that the lower court erred in not sustaining the defendant's motion for a portion of the seized substance."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Foy v. State · Warren v. State“[Upon request] the defendant should be permitted to inspect tangible evidence which may be used against him... .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * However, we do not here pass upon whether or not it is ordinarily the official duty of an officer to preserve the property of a person arrested see Toliver v. State, 133 Miss. 789 , 98 So. 342 (1923) although it may be said that the trend of authorities is moving in that direction see 32 A.L.R. 685 (1924). It is, nevertheless, the practice of police officers to inventory the personal belongings taken from a prisoner and to put them in a place for safekeeping. This is usually done in the presence of the prisoner and a witness so that the prisoner may not later contend that his money and other belongings were confiscated by the officers. "The duty of the officers to search the person of the defendant in the instant case and the right of the officers to inventory and keep the personal effects of the prisoner was proper under the facts here shown.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robinson 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.