768 So. 2d 201 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021
20 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 Terry v. Ohio · Katz v. United States · Payton v. New York · Chambers v. Maroney · Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The state and the defendant shall have the right before argument to submit to the court special written charges for the jury. Such charges may be received by the court in its discretion after argument has begun. The party submitting the charges shall furnish a copy of the charges to the other party when the charges are submitted to the court. A requested special charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation, or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent. It need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Mere presence of the defendant, NACARRO DAVIS, in the area where narcotics are found, or the mere fact that the defendant may have known the person in actual possession, is insufficient to prove constructive possession on the part of NACARRO DAVIS.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Constructive possession connotes control of the thing. A person may be in constructive possession of a thing even though not in physical possession, if the thing is subject to his domination and control. Joint possession connotes a thing which is in the physical custody of another if he willfully and knowingly shares with the other the right to control it. It is not necessary for the state to show that the defendant was in actual possession of the thing. The state must show either actual, constructive or joint possession. Davis, pp. 13-14, 768 So.2d at 210-211 .”
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.