Boblits v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he exclusive possession of recently stolen goods, unexplained, has been held to give rise to a factual inference that the possessor was guilty of receiving stolen goods.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Burns v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2003-02-27· cited 17×
• Cross v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1977-06-13· cited 14×
• Burkett v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1968-10-07· cited 14×
• Boblits v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1969-08-05· cited 13×
• Brown v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1969-11-25· cited 7×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Vincent v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1959-06-09· cited 82×
• Jordan v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1965-09-01· cited 78×
• Agresti v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1967-10-27· cited 66×
• Anglin v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1967-03-14· cited 49×
• Debinski v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1950-02-08· cited 46×
• Scott v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1967-07-18· cited 38×
• Gamble v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1967-10-24· cited 37×
• Spencer v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1967-05-09· cited 30×
• McGlothlin v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1967-05-09· cited 23×
• Cobb v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1967-10-18· cited 10×
• Hott v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1968-02-29· cited 3×