11 Md. App. 555 - Polisher v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Andresen v. Maryland (1976), 24 Md. App. 128 - Andresen v. State (1975)
3 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · 3 Md. App. 11 - Boone v. State · State v. Zimmerman · Simmons v. State · Wentz v. State
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Any person who shall by any false pretense obtain from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security, with intent to defraud any person of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. . .””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This Rule does not contemplate that the State particularize all the evidence it may offer. Now here we’re talking evidence, we’re not talking legal theory. This just deals with evidence. It’s to secure facts, not legal theories. “So it’s clear or no one is arguing that they don’t have to give their legal theories and I believe that [ ] in large part is what the exceptions are to the bill of, the answer to the bill of particulars, that is, to ask the State their legal theories. And I don’t believe I do find that the State does not have to give their legal theories on how they believe the involuntary manslaughter took place. “I find that the defense has copies of statements of all the witnesses and they have 600 pages in discovery which the State is indicating gives them all their facts.... “I believe that the purpose of the bill of particulars is met by the answer from the State. The State gave the [petitioner] open file discovery. If there are any major inconsistencies with what the State has told the Defense, the trial judge can address it as need be. “But I’m not finding that the State has to give more than what they have.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dzikowski v. State““Any person who shall by any false pretense obtain from any other person any chattel, money or valuable security, with intent to defraud any person of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be punished by fine and imprisonment, or by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two years nor more than ten years, as the court shall award; provided always, that if upon the trial of any person charged with such misdemeanor it shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to larceny or robbery, he shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted of such misdemeanor; and no person tried upon such misdemeanor shall be afterwards liable for larceny or robbery upon the same facts; and provided also, that a mere promise for future payment, though not intended to be performed, shall not be sufficient to authorize a conviction under this section.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.