State v. Sledge’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 1999
14 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 State v. Johnson · State v. Burns · State v. Virdure · State v. Young · State v. Worley
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Possession’ as that term is used in these instructions, and in its legal sense, means knowingly having the actual control and dominion of the narcotics to the exclusion of others, and not a mere passing control fleeting and shadowy in its nature. However, it is not necessary to establish ownership in order to establish possession. Furthermore, it is sufficient if the thing possessed is either carried on his person or is in his presence and custody if the possession is immediate, accessible and exclusive to him, (provided, however, that two or more persons may have joint possession of a narcotic if jointly and knowingly they have the dominion, control and exclusive possession described.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Not only did the questioned information charge defendant `wilfully' possessed the drugswhich connotes knowledge but the exact point in issue was ruled in State v. Napolis, supra, wherein it was held, Mo., 436 S.W.2d 645 loc. cit. 647 [1]: `Knowledge that the drug is a barbituate or stimulant is not specified as an element of the offense by the language of the statute. Consequently, it was not necessary for the information against defendant to allege knowledge or criminal intent if the State has the right to prohibit such possession, . . .' See also Supreme Court Rule 24.11, V.A.M.R." Id., at 259.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams“did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in [his] possession and under [his] control [narcotic drugs].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Williams
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.