Bane v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2011
24 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 Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · 1 Cal. 3d 368 - People v. Bauer · State v. Evans · State v. Bricker · Randall Book Corp. 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That rule provides that ‘the theft of several articles at the same time constitutes but one offense although such articles belong to several owners.’ People v. Bauer, 1 Cal.3d 368 , 82 Cal.Rptr. 357, 363 , 461 P.2d 637, 643 (1969). Although this Court has never directly adopted the single larceny rule, in State v. Warren, 77 Md. 121, 122-124 , 26 A. 500 (1893), we recognized that, ‘upon principle ... it would seem clear that the stealing of several articles at the same time, whether belonging to the same person, or to several persons, constituted but one offense.’ The Court of Special Appeals, on the other hand, relying on Warren , expressly adopted the single larceny rule in Gavostis [Govostis] v. State, 74 Md. App. 457, 471 , 538 A.2d 338, 344 (1988). The single larceny rule has been adopted by the majority of courts that have been presented with the issue [citations omitted]. Since the issue in this case is the proper unit of prosecution, a point on which the State and the petitioner certainly agree, we need not address the single larceny rule. If there was only one breaking, necessarily, there could be but one conviction, whatever the amount of property taken and no matter where it was taken. Conversely, if more than one breaking occurred, then both convictions could be sustained, so long as property was taken in both breakings.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. White““begins with the words of the statute, read in light of the full context in which they appear, and in light of external manifestations of intent or general purpose available through other evidence. When the language is clearly consistent with the apparent purpose of the statute and the result is not absurd, no further research is required. Moreover, the analysis of the statute’s language must be undertaken from a commonsensical rather than a technical, per spective, always seeking to avoid giving the statute a strained interpretation or one that reaches an absurd result.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Langston v. Riffe
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.