Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 364 A.2d 1237 - State v. Adams

State v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
7
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2020

10 state decisions

60197619801990200020102020decided

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 Benton v. Maryland · 112 N.J. Super. 305 - State v. Butler · State v. Morrow

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

  1. ““ . . . the language of the statute shows that the legislature intended to apply the statutory prohibitions to individual substances, thereby creating a separate crime with respect to each forbidden substance. ****** “Here, each count charges possession of a separate controlled substance. Proof of the identity of the item possessed is an element of the offense as contemplated by [statute]. A prima facie case is made when some credible evidence tending to prove the existence of each element of the offense has been established. (Citation omitted.) It is generally accepted that in charging a drug violation, the indictment must specify the drug involved. . . . Where possession of separate drugs is charged, while the evidence relating to possession may be the same for each charge, the evidence describing the substance and establishing its drug identity . . would undoubtedly differ with respect to each drug charged. Hence, the totality of evidence required to prove one count would not establish all of the elements required with respect to the other counts.” 364 A.2d at 1240 .”
    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.