Newell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
August 1996
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 478 So. 2d 266 - Keys v. State · 544 So. 2d 816 - Butler v. State · 506 So. 2d 254 - Boches v. State · 355 So. 2d 1378 - Powell v. State · Hamburg 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]here must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where the particular substance is not in the actual physical possession of the Defendant, there must be sufficient facts to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance involved was subject to the Defendant's dominion or control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.