11 Md. App. 202 - Woodruff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[We have] ... recognized that in some instances the more traditional methods of proof by expert testimony may be dispensed with, where the questioned material is such “hard-core pornography 1 that it 'screams for all to hear’ as to its pornographic content. Levin v. State State, ... [ 1 Md.App. 139 , 228 A.2d 487 (1967) ]; Donnenberg v. State, ... [ 1 Md.App. 591 , 232 A.2d 264 (1967) ]; Lancaster v. State, ... [ 7 Md.App. 602 , 256 A.2d 716 (1969) ]. This evidentiary shortcut has been permitted, however, only in dealing with the most flagrant pornography. Such material is typically of the “black market’ variety—that sold ‘under the counter’ in the ‘sleazy bookstore.’ This is the sort of material that we feel Justice Stewart had in mind when he indicated that although he had difficulty defining it, he “knew it when he saw it.’ Certainly to be found in this category would be the ‘stag movie,’ the deck of ‘French playing cards,’ the venerable ‘two-by-four’ of schoolboy memory. This is the sort of material which permits of no reasonable dispute.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 69 Md. App. 590 - 5297 Pulaski Highway, Inc. v. Town of Perryville