Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 So. 2d 1144 - Williams v. State

340 So. 2d 1144 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably 505 So. 2d 1067 - Donahoo v. State (1986), German v. State (1982)

36 state decisions

19019761980199020002010decided

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 Cross v. State · Radke v. State · Smith v. State · 46 Ala. App. 722 - Parks v. State · 46 Ala. App. 36 - Rueffert 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “. . . (1) Actual or potential control; (2) Intention to exercise dominion; and (3) External manifestation of intent and control. . . .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 462 So. 2d 995 - Grubbs v. State · 55 So. 3d 366 - Williams v. State
  2. “where the prohibited material is found on the premises owned or controlled by the appellant.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 55 So. 3d 366 - Williams v. State · 401 So. 2d 148 - Crane v. State
  3. “"At the time the motion to exclude was made, the State had only shown that the appellant was present in the apartment of some other person dressed in rumpled clothing, sans shoes and jacket. He retrieved both his shoes and his jacket from the bedroom when placed under arrest. Whether appellant knew that prohibited drugs were in the apartment, or whether the appellant exercised some dominion or control over the apartment is left to mere conjecture and speculation. . . ."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 351 So. 2d 668 - Smith 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.