McCarthy v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2016
1 federal appellate · 10 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 Kennedy v. Commonwealth · Matthews v. Commonwealth · Francis v. Commonwealth · Tribbett v. Commonwealth · Shields v. Commonwealth
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when, with the intent to commit a crime, he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building, and when in effecting entry or while in the building or in the immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (a) Is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon; or (b) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (c) Uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument against any person who is not a participant in the crime.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“For the “intent” element of the burglary statute to have been satisfied in this case, “with the intent to commit any crime” must be understood to refer to intent to commit a crime in addition to criminal trespass. Criminal trespass is committed by “knowingly entering and remaining unlawfully in a building,” the first element in the burglary statute. Since anytime someone “knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling” that person would necessarily have the intent to commit the crime of coming onto the property, the Majority Opinion has effectively written the intent requirement out of the burglary statute....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“even if one believes that appellant did not have the requisite intent as he entered the house, one could surely believe he subsequently formed the intent necessary to be guilty of the crime of burglary”). 129 . See State v. Harding, 392 A,2d 538 , 541 n.2 (Me. 1978) (concluding, in a case involving only unlawful entry, that there- was no obvious error in an instruction to the jury that”
1 later decision 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.