Campbell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably 636 So. 2d 3 - Schwab v. State (1994), 730 So. 2d 757 - Isaac v. State (1999)
25 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 Hudson v. Palmer · American States Insurance v. Piasecki · 492 So. 2d 1329 - Florida Bar v. Wolf · Smith v. Florida · Brown 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the rules of law applicable to his theory of defense if there is any evidence to support such instruction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“To "possess" means to have personal charge of or exercise the right of ownership, management, or control over the thing possessed. Possession may be actual or constructive. Actual possession means (a) the thing is in the hand of or on the person, or (b) the thing is in a container in the hand of or on the person, or (c)the thing is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person. Mere proximity to a thing is not sufficient to establish control over that thing when the thing is not in a place over which the person has control. Constructive possession means the thing is in a place over which the person has control, or in which the person has concealed it. If a thing is in a place over which the person does not have control, in order to establish constructive possession the State must prove the person's (1) control over the thing, (2) knowledge that the thing was within the person's presence, and (3) knowledge of the illicit nature of the thing. Possession may be joint, that is, two or more persons may jointly have possession of an article, exercising control over it. In that case, each of those persons is considered to be in possession of that article, [emphasis in the original]. If a person has exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may be inferred or assumed. If a person does not have exclusive possession of a thing, knowledge of its presence may not be inferred or assumed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.