111 Md. App. 487 - Price v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2012
22 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 Blockburger v. United States · Brady v. United States · Condon v. State · Jones v. State · West 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a possessory crime or one in which control or dominion over contraband ... constitutes, or is an element of, the actus reus, the law engages in the legal fiction of construe- tive possession to impute inferentially criminal responsibility....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“When one is charged with carjacking, we are not concerned with the victim’s dominion and control over the vehicle except insofar as such possession is interrupted by an act of intimidation or violence on the part of an actor bent on wresting possession from the operator of the vehicle. In other words, the actus reus of carjacking has nothing to do with the possession by the victim of the vehicle. The only significance of the relationship between the victim and the vehicle at the time of the carjacking is in permitting a determination of whether the actor perpetrated a crime against person, i.e., carjacking, or a crime against property, i.e., theft---- Thus, we are concerned here not with imputing criminal responsibility, but rather with whether the defendant’s actions constituted forcible taking of the vehicle or a simple theft thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he victim need not actually be seated in, or operating the vehicle in order for a carjacking or attempted carjacking to be consummated. Rather, the victim need only be entering, alighting from, or otherwise in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle when an individual obtains unauthorized possession or control of the vehicle by intimidation, force, or violence, or by threat of force or violence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.