State v. Curtis

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• \[I]t is not necessary to show that a defendant exercised exclusive possession or control over the substance itself or the place in which the illegal substance was found; control or right to control is sufficient.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Teagle
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2007-11-01· cited 123×
• State v. Valenzuela
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1979-01-10· cited 31×
• State v. Carlson
  Utah Supreme Court· 1981-07-31· cited 20×
• State v. Olivas
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1978-03-07· cited 19×
• State v. Hansen
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1977-11-03· cited 6×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Carroll v. State
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1962-02-07· cited 54×
• State v. Carroll
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1974-10-10· cited 27×
• State v. Cunningham
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1972-06-08· cited 11×
• State v. Riley
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1970-06-10· cited 11×
• State v. Saiz
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1970-11-10· cited 11×
• State v. Moses
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1975-07-24· cited 8×
• State v. Verrue
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1970-10-28· cited 5×
• State v. Barreras
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1975-11-26· cited 5×