McKenzie v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

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.

1. “Burglary in the fourth degree. (a) Prohibited—Breaking and entering dwelling.—A person may not break and enter the dwelling of another. (b) Same—Breaking and entering storehouse.—A person may not break and enter the storehouse of another. (c) Same—Being in or on dwelling, storehouse, or environs.—A person, with the intent to commit theft, may not be in or on: (1) the dwelling or storehouse of another; or (2) a yard, garden, or other area belonging to the dwelling or storehouse of another. (d) Same—Possession of burglar’s tool.—A person may not possess a burglar’s tool with the intent to use or allow the use of the burglar’s tool in the commission of a violation of this subtitle. (e) Penalty.—A person who violates this section is guilty of the misdemeanor of burglary in the fourth degree and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 197 Md. App. 430 - Maryland State Police v. McLean

2. “To be a dwelling, the place must be of human habitation, that is, a “place to sleep in[.]” A structure does not become a dwelling until someone occupies it. Once a dwelling, however, the structure does not lose its character as a dwelling simply because it is left vacant for a time. The length of the vacancy, moreover, does not, of itself, disturb the character of the place as a dwelling. “Certain it is that the dweller and his entire household may be away for months, without depriving the house of its character as his dwelling.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hobby v. State

3. “[T]he “crucial factor” is “whether [the structure] is a place intended to be used, and in fact is used, as an abode and place for humans to sleep.... The paramount interest that [the daytime housebreaking statute] seeks to protect is the right of human habitation to be free from the terror of an invader. Accordingly, it matters not what type of facility the individual chooses to use for his habitation, so long as he intends it to be his abode and so uses it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Henriquez