11 Md. App. 259 - Ott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 35 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Assault has been defined as any attempt to apply the least force to the person of another. The attempt is made when there is any action or conduct reasonably tending to create apprehension in another and that the person engaged therein is about to apply such force to him.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 93 Md. App. 422 - Lamb v. State · 141 Md. App. 610 - Lamb v. State

2. ““The first was when the prosecutor stated * * but I think that he (Mr. Ott) is the type of individual that fits the pattern of the State’s theory of the case and that he is typically the type person who might do exactly what was done under the theory of the State’s case.’ Appellant contends that this refers to his prior convictions and it was therefore improper. A reading of the record discloses that this contention is not correct. It is apparent from the record that the prosecutor was referring to appellant’s demeanor on the witness stand and his actions at the time of the alleged crime. The other instance was when the prosecutor stated that ‘We are lucky we are not here today with a murder charge.’ He then remarked that such situations make Baltimore a big crime area. We feel these remarks áre fair comment in argument and certainly do not merit reversal. They are neither misleading nor prejudicial to the appellant. See Day v. State, 2 Md. App. 334; Holbrook v. State, 6 Md. App. 265 ; Chandler v. State, 7 Md. App. 646 .” 11 Md. App. at 268 , 273 A. 2d at 635 . (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilhelm v. State

3. ““An opening statement is not evidence and to secure a reversal the accused is usually required to establish bad faith in the statement of what the prosecution expects to prove or substantial prejudice resulting therefrom. Clarke v. State, 238 Md. 11 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 21 Md. App. 269 - Spease v. State