118 Md. App. 244 - Plummer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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. “[A]ll of the evidence that we have in the case at bar is that the appellant momentarily drifted onto the shoulder of a road, up a sloped curve only approximately 3 inches in height, and unfortunately, took the life of a little girl. The reason for the appellant’s departure from the travel portion of the roadway is and forever will be unknown. ... Nevertheless, his brief lack of attention, even though it resulted in sheer tragedy, was not of such “extraordinary or outrageous character” as to rise to the level of gross negligence capable of sustaining a conviction for automobile manslaughter.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vielot v. State · 127 Md. App. 271 - Pagotto v. State

2. “In each case, as a matter of law, the evidence must be sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that the defendant was grossly negligent, that is, he had a wanton or reckless disregard for human life in the operation of an automobile. It deals with the state of mind of the defendant' driver. Only conduct that is of extraordinary or outrageous character will be sufficient to imply this state of mind. Simple negligence will not be sufficient-even reckless driving may not be enough. Reckless driving may be a strong indication, but unless it is of extraordinary or outrageous character, it will ordinarily not be sufficient.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State · Vielot v. State

3. “It is also uncontested that the appellant fled the scene after the accident. Granted, flight is a factor to consider, but given the fact that the only evidence of irregular driving was the appellant’s brief drift to the shoulder and the curb, flight from, the scene cannot support a finding of gross negligence.... [T]he appellant’s choice not to stop and render aid, while morally inexcusable, may have amounted to no more than the manifestation of his oim fright and disbelief. We do not think that such flight, under the circumstances, demonstrates that the appellant cared so little about what he had done as to render him grossly negligent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 127 Md. App. 271 - Pagotto v. State