113 Md. App. 29 - Acquah v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably 139 Md. App. 412 - Sutton v. State (2001), 123 Md. App. 193 - In Re Nahif A. (1998)
32 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · Hernandez v. New York · Purkett v. Elem · Town of Mashpee v. Mashpee Tribe
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Judging the weight and the credibility of witnesses and resolving conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the sound discretion of the trier of fact.... When the trier of fact is the trial court, its judgment on the evidence will be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous____ Appellate review of the court’s judgment on the evidence is limited to determining whether there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the court’s underlying factual findings. In a criminal case., the appropriate iwqairy is not whether the reviewing court believes that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather, whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt ... This same standard of review applies in juvenile delinquency cases.... In such cases, the delinquent act, like the criminal act, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) A person may not possess stolen personal property knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen, if the person: (i) intends to deprive the owner of the property; (ii) willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property; or (iii) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing that the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property.”
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.