4 Wash. App. 653 - State v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably 64 Wash. App. 641 - State v. Huff (1992), 14 Wash. App. 414 - State v. Harris (1975)
31 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 Anders v. California · 77 Wash. 2d 27 - State v. Callahan · 70 Wash. 2d 27 - State v. Morris · 1 Wash. App. 614 - State v. Potts · 2 Wash. App. 57 - State v. Green
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Constructive possession is proved when the person charged with possession has dominion and control over either the drugs or the premises upon which the drugs were found.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Constructive possession is proved when the person charged with possession has dominion and control over either the drugs or the premises upon which the drugs were found. State v. Callahan, 77 Wn.2d 27 , 459 P.2d 400 (1969). In State v. Potts, supra [ 1 Wn. App. 614 , 464 P.2d 742 (1969)], we held that an automobile may be considered a "premises" for the purpose of determining whether the defendant exercised dominion and control over the premises where the narcotic drugs were found. Whether a passenger's occupancy of a particular part of an automobile would constitute dominion and control of either the drugs or the area in which they are found would depend upon the particular facts in each case. Mere proximity to the drugs is not enough to establish constructive possession—it must be established that the defendant exercised dominion and control over either the drugs or the area in which they were found.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“other circumstances linking him to the heroin”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. George · State v. Turner
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.