Amaya v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
373 F.2d 197 · 1967
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably State v. Hankerson (1982), United States v. Staten (1978)
36 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
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 Hoffa v. United States · United States v. Garguilo · United States v. Jones · United States v. Landry · Todd v. United States
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constructive possession meant that although the narcotic may be in the physical possession of another, the defendant knowingly had the power of exercising control over it; ...; and that 'power to produce or dispose of the narcotic was evidence of such control.’ ”). 4 . The jury asked the following question during deliberations: Under constructive possession it states the defendant had "the right to exercise physical control over the firearm.”
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.