Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cheramiegreen2 sentences2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (2008) 218 Ariz. 447 , 189 P.3d 374 , 378 ["[a] 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it."]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54 , 58 ["possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession"]; State v. Rhode (1999) 133 Idaho 459 , 988 P.2d 685 , 687 ["Neither *360 the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court"]; State v. Brown (1989) 245 Kan. 604 , 783 P.2d 12 2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (2008) 218 Ariz. 447 , 189 P.3d 374 , 378 ["[a] 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it."]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54 , 58 ["possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession"]; State v. Rhode (1999) 133 Idaho 459 , 988 P.2d 685 , 687 ["Neither *360 the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court"]; State v. Brown (1989) 245 Kan. 604 , 783 P.2d 12 | 2 | 3 |
Richardson v. Peoplegreen2 sentences2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (Ariz. 2008) 189 P.3d 374, 378 [“[a] ‘usable quantity’ is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it.”]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54, 58 [“possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession”]; State v. Rhode (Idaho 1999) 988 P.2d 685, 687 [“Neither the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court”]; State v. Brown (Kan. 1989) 783 P.2d 1278, 1285 [joining “majority view” that 2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (2008) 218 Ariz. 447 , 189 P.3d 374 , 378 ["[a] 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it."]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54 , 58 ["possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession"]; State v. Rhode (1999) 133 Idaho 459 , 988 P.2d 685 , 687 ["Neither *360 the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court"]; State v. Brown (1989) 245 Kan. 604 , 783 P.2d 12 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Rhodegreen2 sentences2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (2008) 218 Ariz. 447 , 189 P.3d 374 , 378 ["[a] 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it."]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54 , 58 ["possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession"]; State v. Rhode (1999) 133 Idaho 459 , 988 P.2d 685 , 687 ["Neither *360 the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court"]; State v. Brown (1989) 245 Kan. 604 , 783 P.2d 12 2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (2008) 218 Ariz. 447 , 189 P.3d 374 , 378 ["[a] 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it."]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54 , 58 ["possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession"]; State v. Rhode (1999) 133 Idaho 459 , 988 P.2d 685 , 687 ["Neither *360 the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court"]; State v. Brown (1989) 245 Kan. 604 , 783 P.2d 12 | 2 | 3 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (2008) 218 Ariz. 447 , 189 P.3d 374 , 378 ["[a] 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it."]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54 , 58 ["possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession"]; State v. Rhode (1999) 133 Idaho 459 , 988 P.2d 685 , 687 ["Neither *360 the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court"]; State v. Brown (1989) 245 Kan. 604 , 783 P.2d 12 2019(See, e.g., State v. Cheramie (2008) 218 Ariz. 447 , 189 P.3d 374 , 378 ["[a] 'usable quantity' is neither an element of the possession offense nor necessary to sustain a conviction for it."]; Richardson v. People (Colo. 2001) 25 P.3d 54 , 58 ["possession of a usable quantity is not an element of the crime of possession"]; State v. Rhode (1999) 133 Idaho 459 , 988 P.2d 685 , 687 ["Neither *360 the evidentiary nor the statutory rationale for implementing the usable-quantity rule recommends the adoption of the usable-quantity rule by this Court"]; State v. Brown (1989) 245 Kan. 604 , 783 P.2d 12 | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rubacalba
green
1 sentence2016(People v. Rubacalba (1993) 6 Cal.4th 62, 64-65 .) The usable quantity rule “does not extend to a substance containing contraband, even if not pure, if the substance is in a form and quantity that can be used. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Estate of McDill
green
2 sentences1981The usable quantity requirement has been a well known element of Health and Safety Code possession offenses since at least 1966, when the Supreme Court decided Leal, supra. The Legislature presumably was aware of the usable quantity doctrine well before 1970, when it amended Penal Code section 4573.6 to insert “knowingly.” (Estate of McDill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 831, 839 .) In a broader sense, the Legislature’s failure in 1949 and thereafter to provide a different definition of possession under Penal Code section 4573.6 supports an inference that it intended the elements of possession to be the sa 1981The usable quantity requirement has been a well known element of Health and Safety Code possession offenses since at least 1966, when the Supreme Court decided Leal, supra. The Legislature presumably was aware of the usable quantity doctrine well before 1970, when it amended Penal Code section 4573.6 to insert “knowingly.” (Estate of McDill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 831, 839 .) In a broader sense, the Legislature’s failure in 1949 and thereafter to provide a different definition of possession under Penal Code section 4573.6 supports an inference that it intended the elements of possession to be the sa | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.