Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 Ark. App. 245 - Young v. State

77 Ark. App. 245 - Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Atkinson v. State · Nichols v. State · Darrough v. State · Stanton v. State · 72 Ark. App. 227 - Harris 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To convict one of possessing contraband, the State must show that the defendant exercised control or dominion over it. Neither exclusive nor actual physical possession, however, is necessary to sustain a charge of possessing contraband; rather, constructive possession is sufficient. Constructive possession may be implied when the contraband is in the joint control of the accused and another; however, joint occupancy alone is insufficient to establish possession or joint possession. The State must establish in a prosecution for possessing contraband (1) that the accused exercised care, control, and management over the contraband, and (2) that the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband.”
    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.