Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 Md. App. 312 - Butina v. State

4 Md. App. 312 - Butina v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
3
states following
July 2000
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably Richmond v. State (1992), 12 Md. App. 449 - Mills v. State (1971)

45 state decisions

27019681970198019902000decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Wong Sun v. United States · Escobedo v. Illinois · Pointer v. Texas · Costello 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Under the common law, parties to a felony are classified as principals or accessories. Principals in the first degree' are those who commit thé deed as perpetrating actors, either by their own hand or by the hand of an innocent agent. Persons present, actually or constructively, aiding and abetting the commission of the crime, but not themselves committing it, are principals in the second degree .... But in this State there is no practical distinction between principals in the first and second degree.” Butina v. State, 4 Md. App. 312, 318, 242 A. 2d 819 (1968).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Since under the statute two separate substantive offenses of arson are defined, it follows that to be validly convicted a person must be properly charged with the offense of arson which the evidence shows he committed. So if he, in fact, set fire to or burned or caused to be burned a dwelling house, he cannot be convicted on a charge that he aided, counseled or procured the burning, and vice versa.””
    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.