70 N.C. App. 82 - State v. Dow’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 155 N.C. App. 89 - State v. Wilson (2002), 141 N.C. App. 675 - State v. Munoz (2001)
46 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 103 S. Ct. 247 - Beneficial Finance of Kansas, Inc. v. United States · Liotta v. National Forge Co. · State v. Harvey · Poythress v. Duncan · State v. Perry
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n inference of constructive possession can also arise from evidence which tends to show that a defendant was the custodian of the vehicle where the controlled substance was found. In fact, the courts in this State have held consistently that the “driver of a borrowed car, like the owner of the car, has the power to control the contents of the car.” Moreover, power to control the automobile where a controlled substance was found is sufficient, in and of itself, to give rise to the inference of knowledge and possession sufficient to go to the jury.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“where judgment must be arrested upon one of two sentences of equal severity because of a double jeopardy violation, the sentence which appears later on the docket, or is second of two counts of a single indictment, or is the second of two indictments, will be stricken.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our review of the legislative history and case law background against which our possession statutes were enacted and our analysis of its internal provisions lead us to the conclusion that . . . the Legislature did not intend to punish an individual for larceny of property and the possession of the same property which he stole.”
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.