Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 Md. 36 - Jordan v. State

Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

121
cited by 121 later decisions
6
states following
May 2014
most recently cited

6 district · 115 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably State v. Hutchinson (1980), West v. State (1988)

6 district · 115 state decisions

590196519701980199020002010decided

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 People v. . Galbo · Heath v. State · Hayette v. State · Anello v. State · Debinski 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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he facts must shape the inference. [For example,] [i]s the guilty possessor the thief, or is he a receiver of stolen goods? Judges have said that, if nothing more is shown, we may take him to be the thief. But as soon as evidence is offered that the theft was committed by some one else, the inference changes, and he becomes a receiver of stolen goods. “The problem is a hard one. To solve it we must steadily bear in mind that the inference of guilt to be draw from possession is never one of law. It is an inference of fact. Other facts may neutralize it, or repel it, or render it so remote or tenuous or uncertain that in a given case we should reject it.... If the circumstances make one inference just as reasonable as the other, we must give the defendant the benefit of the conclusion that would mitigate his guilt.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is the law that recent and exclusive possession of the fruits of crime, if unexplained or falsely explained, will justify the inference that the possessor is the criminal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “His very implausible account of his close position with relation to the stolen vehicle, ... may well have led the court to conclude that his story was concocted out of the whole cloth. (Emphasis supplied). The appellant’s attempted explanation in this case did not fly and was, therefore, no better than no explanation at all.”
    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.