Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 732 P.2d 132 - State v. Bingham

State v. Bingham’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012

12 state decisions

701987199020002010decided

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 State v. Fox · State v. Dorsey · State v. Hansen · State v. Watts · State v. Heaps

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[P]ossession of a controlled substance sufficient to sustain a conviction need not be actual but may be constructive.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[d]efendant may not reargue the weight of that evidence, relying upon testimony favoring his innocence and ignoring the conflicting testimony against him. The fact that defendant's evidence contradicts the [court's] determination does not require reversal on appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In order to prove constructive possession, there must be a nexus between the accused and the drug sufficient enough to allow an inference that the accused had both the ability and the intent to exercise dominion and control over the drug.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.