3 Md. App. 462 - Briscoe v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2013
10 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 2 Md. App. 278 - Agresti v. State · Cohen v. State · 1 Md. App. 161 - Graef v. State · 2 Md. App. 1 - Loker v. State · Golding Bros. v. Dumaine
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] mutual intent to assist one another against any who shall oppose them is an element of the offense of riot, but it seems that, while this specific intention may be held by rioters, it is not in general essential to the offense and a previous agreement or conspiracy need not be shown. The intention which is generally an element of the offense is the intent to join in or encourage the acts which constitute the riot.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““At common law it was necessary that three or more persons be unlawfully assembled to carry out a common purpose in such violent or turbulent manner as to terrify others, and assault or destruction of property may or may not be incident to the execution of the riot. The assembly must be unlawful, else there is no riot, and the unlawful assembly must be charged in the indictment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is undoubtedly true that a riot cannot ordinarily be committed by one person. It is the acting in concert, the unlawful combination, which constitutes the offense. . . . Whether the other rioters were named in the indictment, or not, proof of a riot in which any two other persons joined with the defendant was sufficient.””
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.