Reisch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 12 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Strict liability criminal offenses that do not require mens rea were generally enacted in response “to the demands of public health and welfare arising from the complexities of society after the Industrial Revolution. Typically misdemeanors involving only fines or other light penalties, these strict liability laws regulated food, milk, liquor, medicines and drugs, securities, motor vehicles and traffic, the labeling of goods for sale, and the like.” Garnett, 332 Md. at 578, 632 A.2d 797 . See also Dawkins, 313 Md. at 644-645, 547 A.2d 1041 . But, as the Court of Appeals has acknowledged, “the contemporary view ... disfavors strict liability offenses.” Dawkins, 313 Md. at 650 , 547 A.2d 1041 . See also, Garnett, 332 Md. at 579 , 632 A.2d 797 (“Modern scholars generally reject the concept of strict criminal liability”); State v. McCallum, 321 Md. 451, 456 , 583 A.2d 250 (1991). ^ ^ ^ Although the statute here has characteristics that are regulatory in nature, see, e.g., Dawkins, 313 Md. at 644 , 547 A.2d 1041 ; McCallum, 321 Md. at 456 , 583 A.2d 250 ; Harry Berenter, Inc., 258 Md. at 294, 265 A.2d 759 , it is also punitive. Indeed, a maximum period of incarceration of two years is not a “light” penalty, and this factor militates against characterizing the statute as a strict liability “ ‘public welfare’ offense.” McCallum, 321 Md. at 457 , 583 A.2d 250 . When, as here, “the statute is both remedial and penal, the remedial portion may be construed liberally while the penal prov”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 223 Md. App. 198 - Okoro v. Maryland Department of the Environment · 342 F. Supp. 2d 346 - United States v. Talebnejad

2. “[notwithstanding appellant’s admitted failure to obtain a home improvement license, we agree that the evidence was insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction. We rest our conclusion on the State’s failure to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Reisch acted knowingly and wilfully. Based on express statutory language, we reject any claim that the terms “knowingly and wilfully” are mere surplus-age or that the home improvement provisions in issue impose strict criminal liability. We explain.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 125 Md. App. 579 - Suburban Hospital, Inc. v. Maryland Health Resources Planning Commission

3. “A person who willfully ships, imports, sells into or within, or transports within, this State cigarettes or other tobacco products on which the tobacco tax has not been paid in violation of Title 12 of this article or § 16-219 or § 16-222 of the Business Regulation Article is guilty of a felony and, on conviction, is subject to a fine not exceeding $50 for each carton of cigarettes transported or imprisonment not exceeding 2 years or both.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zi Qiang Chen v. State