12 Md. App. 48 - Berlin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1999 · most notably 78 Ill. 2d 477 - People v. Tipton (1980), 61 Md. App. 670 - Schear v. Motel Management Corp. of America (1985)
26 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 Chimel v. California · 7 Md. App. 505 - Scott v. State · Cook v. State · 8 Md. App. 355 - Simmons v. State · 3 Md. App. 237 - Wethington 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally speaking, it must appear that the acts injurious or offensive to the public which constitute the nuisance are recurrent. But there is no particular extent of time prescribed during which the improper practices must continue or recur; each case must be adjudged according to its own circumstances. It is usually deemed sufficient if, when the character of the culpable acts and the circumstances under which they were committed are taken into account, it appears that they were repeated often enough to warrant an inference that the house was kept for the indulgence of such practices. * * * While the indictment charged that he was keeping a disorderly house on November 12, 1968, evidence of acts committed therein prior to that date was clearly relevant and admissible to show that, on that date, he was committing the crime of keeping a disorderly house.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““That such evidence may relate to offenses after as well as before the one on trial was pointed out by Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Smith, 283 F.2d 760 (1960). The evidence then developed from appellant was that on two later occasions he sold amphetamines to Trooper Lawrence, probably 1,000 tablets. We conclude that the evidence was admissible for the purposes stated.” (emphasis supplied).”
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.