Warfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Oken v. State (1992), K & K Management, Inc. v. Chul Woo Lee (1989)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 102 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 Burks v. United States · Tibbs v. Florida · Greene v. Massey · Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · Rowell v. United States
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The knowledge requirement is designed primarily to exclude from criminal liability both the inadvertent trespasser and the trespasser who believes that he has received an express or implied permission to enter or remain.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““We are not of a mind with the Court of Special Appeals in its belief that the second motion for judgment of acquittal must stand alone. As we have seen there were no reasons expressly advanced at the time the second motion was made. But when we consider the purpose of the statute and the rule in the light of their context, we are satisfied that the command to particularize reasons has been met in the circumstances here. The general purpose of the statute and the rule is patent. It is to implement, by means of a motion for judgment of acquittal, the constitutional authority given an appellate court to pass on the sufficiency of the evidence. The specific purpose of the mandate of the rule to particularize the reasons for the motion is to enable the trial judge to be aware of the precise basis for the defendant’s belief that the evidence is insufficient. Then the judge in determining the motion may fully appreciate the position of the defendant. All in all the command to particularize the reasons operates to the benefit of the defendant and also acts as an aid to the trial judge.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The common requirement of criminal trespass offenses is that the actor be aware of the fact that he is making an unwarranted intrusion. The Model Penal Code reflects this by making an intrusion culpable when a person knows he is not licensed or privileged to enter.... The knowledge requirement is designed primarily to exclude from criminal liability both the inadvertent trespasser and the trespasser who believes that he has received an express or implied permission to enter or remain. ' * * * "[T]he legislature [in enacting the criminal trespass statutes] intended that the intrusion, to be culpable, be with an awareness that it was unwarranted lacking authority, license, privilege, invitation, or legality. To make culpable the inadvertent trespasser and the trespasser who entertains a reasonable belief that his conduct was proper would be unreasonable, illogical, inconsistent with common sense, and contrary to the interests of justice. Such results, we have stated, are to be avoided."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.