German v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 468 So. 2d 896 - Henry v. State (1984), 501 So. 2d 520 - McCord v. State (1986)
59 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 United States v. Gainey · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · United States v. Laughman · United States v. Staten · Radke 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Proximity to illegal drugs, presence on the property where they are located, or mere association with persons who do control the drugs may be sufficient to support a finding of possession when accompanied with testimony connecting the accused with the incriminating surrounding circumstances.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Knight v. State · Coder v. State“[W]hen the presence of the accused at the scene is established and evidence of his knowledge of the presence of the prohibited substance is shown (even by circumstantial evidence), along with any other incriminating evidence, the issue of defendant's guilt should be submitted to the jury.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“'. . . . " 'Several usable guidelines emerge from the decided cases. Mere presence of the accused on the premises, or simply his proximity to the drug, does not itself enable such a deduction. Nor is mere association with another, standing alone, enough even when the other is known to possess the drug. But, as has frequently been held, presence, proximity or association may establish a prima facie case of drug-possession when colored by evidence linking the accused to an ongoing criminal operation of which that possession is a part.' *Page 431 "Proximity to illegal drugs, presence in the property where they are located, or mere association with persons who do control the drugs may be sufficient to support a finding of possession when accompanied with testimony connecting the accused with the incriminating surrounding circumstances.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Knight v. State · Coder 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.