Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 Md. App. 85 - Anglin v. State

1 Md. App. 85 - Anglin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
3
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably United States v. Johnson (1970), State v. Wilson (1977)

6 federal appellate · 71 state decisions

310196719701980199020002010decided

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 Carroll v. United States · United States v. Rabinowitz · Harris v. United States · Marron v. United States · Tucker 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The articles seized were of the same nature and substance as those described in the warrant. With this knowledge and confronted with the great array of merchandise, literally enough to stock a store, we do not feel that justice requires the police officers to close their minds and eyes. We think there was more than reasonable cause for them to believe the property was stolen. Appellant maintains that he could have been a watch salesman or clothing salesman or that there are other logical explanations to account for the property other than it was stolen. We think this incredible under the circumstances as did the trial court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The requirement that goods be “recently” stolen is a relative one. In Anglin v. State, 1 Md.App. [85,] at 92 [ 227 A.2d 364 ] [ (1967) ], this court, quoting Butz v. State, 221 Md. 68, 77 [ 156 A.2d 423 (1959)], said: The term “recent” when used in connection with recently stolen goods, is a relative term, and its meaning as applied to a given case will vary with the circumstances of the case. (Citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The law is clear that recent possession of stolen goods is evidence of guilt o£ the possessor and casts the burden on the possessor of such stolen goods to give a reasonable explanation of how he came into its possession * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.