Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Md. App. 363 - Cates v. State

21 Md. App. 363 - Cates v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
9
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably 21 Cal. 4th 935 - People v. Tufunga (1999), State v. Morant (1997)

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 32 state decisions

12019741980199020002010decided

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 Midgett v. State · People v. Butler · State v. Gover · Butts v. Commonwealth · Fletcher 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The phrase claim of right and the phrase honestly believes himself to be entitled , when applied to an intentional taking of property, must be given a limited and not a broad interpretation. They must be taken to require a legally recognizable right which can be successfully asserted in our courts. The intent to steal , the element of larceny which makes it and robbery special intent crimes, must be evaluated objectively and not subjectively, and within the framework of rights and obligations given and imposed by the law." Cates v. State , 21 Md. App. 363 , 320 A.2d 75 , 79 (Md.Spec.App. 1974) (emphasis in original).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “While the capacity of the victim is immaterial, it is essential that he have possession or custody, for by definition, goods cannot be taken from “the person of another or in his presence” unless he has possession or custody of the goods. Since only the prior possession of the victim is required, the defendant may be guilty of robbery even though the victim had himself stolen the property from another person or the money stolen was the proceeds from the sale of property which had been stolen.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Thus, the question is ultimately one of basic public policy, which unequivocally dictates that the proper forum for resolving debt disputes is a court of law, pursuant to legal progress — not the street, at the business end of a lethal weapon.””
    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.