State v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably State v. Roberts (1997), State v. Baue (2000)
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 97 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 United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Dennis v. Dennis · Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen · Gullett v. States · Newlon v. Missouri
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person, with knowledge of the presence and nature of a substance, has actual or constructive possession of the substance. A person has actual possession if he has the substance on his person or within easy reach and convenient control. A person who, although not in actual possession, has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over the substance either directly or through another person or persons is in constructive possession of it. Possession may also be sole or joint. If one person alone has possession of a substance possession is sole. If two or more persons share possession of a substance, possession is joint.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Bright · State v. Wiley““MAI-CR and its Notes on Use are ‘not binding’ to the extent they conflict with the substantive law. ‘Procedural rules adopted by MAI cannot change the substantive law and must therefore be interpreted in the light of existing statutory and case law.’ [[Image here]] “If an instruction following MAI-CR3d conflicts with the substantive law, any court should decline to follow MAI-CR3d or its Notes on Use.” (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Zumwalt · Koon v. Walden““7. A person commits the crime of trafficking drugs in the second degree if ... he possesses or has under his control, purchases or attempts to purchase, or brings into this state more than thirty kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing marijuana.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Bright · State v. Sloan
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.