8 Md. App. 370 - Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Grandison v. State (1986), Mason v. State (1985)
50 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 Lawrence v. State · Gray v. State · Seidman v. State · Archer v. State · Scarlett 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Concurrence of action on a material point is sufficient to enable a jury to presume concurrence of sentiment, and from this the actual fact of conspiracy may be inferred.’ See also Hill v. State, 231 Md. 458, 461 , in which those principles of law were applied in finding that certain overt acts of concurrence of action by three persons, of whom defendant was one, on material points showed guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, and that they were all acting in concert; Boddie and Brooks v. State, 6 Md. App. 523 ; Harper v. State, supra; Price v. State, 4 Md. App. 701 . In the instant case the lower court could have properly drawn from the evidence before it an inference of a common design. . . .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is not necessary that a formal agreement be shown. It need not be manifested by any formal words, written or spoken. "It is enough if the parties tacitly come to an understanding in regard to the unlawful purpose, and this may be inferred from sufficiently significant circumstances.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A conspiracy may be shown by circumstantial evidence from which an inference of common design may be drawn and it is not necessary to demonstrate that the conspirators met and agreed in terms to a design and to pursue it by common means.””
2 later decisions 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.