Green v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 1997
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 559 So. 2d 187 - State v. Law · 534 So. 2d 393 - State v. Pennington · Frank v. State · State v. Medlin · 509 So. 2d 917 - State v. Dominguez
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“From the foregoing it appears to be established in this state that before one charged with unlawfully possessing narcotic drugs may be convicted, the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the presence of the narcotic drugs on premises occupied and controlled by him, either exclusively or jointly with others. If the premises on which the drugs are found are in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, knowledge of their presence on such premises coupled with his ability to maintain control over them may be inferred. * * * If the premises on which the drugs are found is not in the exclusive but only in the joint possession by the accused, knowledge of the drugs' presence on the premises and the ability to maintain control over them by the accused will not be inferred but must be established by proof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“drug possession offenses. Judge Stone's special concurrence disputed the validity of this distinction: In my judgment, the legislature's intent is that the evidence required and permissible inferences are the same for both possession and trafficking by possession, but for the additional required proof of the weight of the drugs. Id. at 1310 . Judge Glickstein dissented to the holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish Green's knowledge. Medlin Long ago, we held in a prosecution for unlawful possession of liquor that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“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
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.