Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 336 So. 2d 127 - Hively v. State

336 So. 2d 127 - Hively v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Brown v. State (1983), 705 So. 2d 90 - Dupree v. State (1998)

63 state decisions

27019761980199020002010decided

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 Frank v. State · Smith v. State · 276 So. 2d 191 - Griffin v. State · 320 So. 2d 823 - Willis v. State · Medlin 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Constructive possession exists where the accused without physical possession of the controlled substance knows of its presence on or about his premises and has the ability to maintain control over said controlled substance.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Brown v. State · Gaynus v. State
  2. “As previously indicated, this court has consistently held that when contraband is found in a vehicle which is in the possession of two or more persons, circumstantial evidence of defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband must be consistent with the accused's guilt, inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 579 So. 2d 364 - In Interest of EH
  3. “that the evidence presented is not sufficient to present a jury issue on the question of the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the marijuana in the automobile, and that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 483 So. 2d 42 - Fedor 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.