103 Md. App. 378 - Schwartz v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Principles of criminal law are inapplicable to the problems arising out of these contractual disputes. If we were to permit the State to charge an impecunious contractor under the theft statute because the contractor failed to perform contract obligations adequately, each breach of contract could conceivably result in criminal charges against the contractor for theft. ‘Whenever parties themselves define the limits of their rights and obligations, the compact controls, and there is no room for the application of a legal theory to the contrary.’ In the instant case, the Romans and the Blakes agreed to pay Adams Homes to construct custom homes on their properties. Adams Homes, in return for a certain sum of money, agreed to construct the homes and complete the work in accordance with an agreed upon schedule of draw payments. Any failure on the parts of Adams Homes or appellant to perform under the Blake and Roman contracts resulted in breaches of those contracts and possible violations of the MCHPA Such failures to perform contractual obligations, however, should not have resulted in appellant’s conviction for theft. After considering all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we hold that no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of embezzlement or theft beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s convictions for misappropriation of funds (§ 132) and theft for goods over $300 (§ 342).”

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

2. “to furnish labor and material in connection with construction, erection, or completion of a custom home.” [Md. Real Prop.Code Ann.] § 10-501(e). The contracts identify Adams Homes as the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spinoso v. Heilman (In Re Heilman)

3. “buyers.” Specifically, the “New Home Sales Contract” executed between Adams Homes and the Romans stated that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Spinoso v. Heilman (In Re Heilman)