Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 254 Ark. 1011 - Stone v. State

Stone v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Collins v. State (1977), ERC Contractor Yard & Sales v. Robertson (1998)

41 state decisions

2701973198019902000decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 5601

Relies on Griffin v. California · Leary v. United States · Turner v. United States · Tot v. United States · United States v. Romano

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

  1. “... a statutory presumption cannot be sustained if there be no rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed, if the inference of the one from proof of the other is arbitrary because of lack of connection between the two in common experience. This is not to say that a valid presumption may not be created upon a view of relation broader than that a jury might take in a specific case. But where the inference is so strained as not to have a reasonable relation to the circumstances of life as we know them, it is not competent for the legislature to create it as a rule governing the procedure of courts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “Possession of marijuana (Cannabis Sativa L.) in excess of one ounce shall create a rebuttable presumption that such person possesses such controlled substance with intent to deliver; provided, however, the presumption provided for herein may be overcome by the submission of evidence sufficient to create reasonable doubt that the person charged possessed the marijuana (Cannabis Sativa L.) with intent to deliver.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.