Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably McGoldrick v. State (1985), Hernandez v. State (1976)
67 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. Romano · Frank v. State · People v. Antista · Commonwealth v. Reece · Evans 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Possession means more than being where the action is; it involves the exercise of dominion and control over the thing allegedly possessed.’ ... Whether the case is tried on the theory of joint or sole possession, the evidence must affirmatively link the accused to the drug he is alleged to have possessed.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lay v. State · Hughes v. State“"1. To convict for unlawful possession of marihuana it is necessary to prove that the accused knew of the presence of the marihuana and that the same was under his control and dominion. 2. Possession may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but a conviction on circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the proof does not exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; and proof amounting only to a strong suspicion or mere probability is insufficient. 3. Where a person is present in premises where marihuana is found, but does not have exclusive access, use, or possession of the premises, it may not be inferred that he had knowledge of the presence of marihuana and had control of it unless there are additional independent factors showing his knowledge and control. * * *"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cory v. State · Sturgeon v. State“[w]here a person is present in premises where marijuana is found, but does not have exclusive access, use, or possession of the premises, it may not be inferred that he had knowledge of the presence of marihuana and had control of it unless there are additional independent factors showing his knowledge and control.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Champeau v. State · Roth 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.