Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 401 So. 2d 131 - Reed v. State

401 So. 2d 131 - Reed v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
January 2003
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2003

12 state decisions

60198119902000decided

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 Franks v. Delaware · Aguilar v. Texas · Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Ryan v. United States · Boswell 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In the case at bar the house was laden with marijuana amounting to over 24 pounds. It was packaged in various shapes and sizes and was accompanied by two sets of scales and three cigarette rollers. The introduction of the testimony of the phencyclidine was admissible as part of the res gestae and part of one occurrence. Flippo v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 359 So.2d 1184 . “Appellant also contends that it was error to allow testimony that three weapons and seventy-five hundred dollars ($ 7,500.00) in cash were found in the search.... “In this case, the guns and money like the phencyclidine were relevant to the case as part of the res gestae to show the ‘complete story’ and these items had probative value to establish that the possession of marijuana was not for personal use only. Flippo v. State, supra.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"I charge you, members of the jury, that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance alleged to have been sold by the defendant was, from the evidence, marijuana as defined by law. I charge you, then, that the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance alleged to have been sold was as follows: "Marijuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"An indictment charging possession of marijuana includes the lesser offense of possession of marijuana for personal use. Lee v. State , Ala.Cr.App. 350 So.2d 743 ; Butts v. State , Ala.Cr.App. 346 So.2d 497 ; Van Nostrand v. State , 56 Ala. App. 141 , 319 So.2d 760 . An indictment charging possession of marijuana, also, informs a defendant of the nature of the charges against him and fairly apprises him that he is charged with the lesser offense of possession of marijuana for personal use, a misdemeanor. Butts v. State , supra."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.