12 Md. App. 286 - Hunt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 93 Md. App. 422 - Lamb v. State (1992), Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co. (2000)
2 district · 39 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 · Midgett v. State · Kucharczyk v. State · 6 Md. App. 265 - Holbrook v. State · 2 Md. App. 692 - Tender 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every person, his counsellors, aiders or abettors, who shall be convicted of the crime of kidnapping and forcibly or fraudulently carrying or causing to be carried out of or within this State any person . .. with intent to have such person carried out of or within this State, or with the intent to have such person concealed within the State or without the State, shall be guilty of a felony.. ..” (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But here there was evidence from which the jury could have found that Hunt assaulted Barbara independent of any assault incident to the kidnapping itself. Barbara testified that while in Hunt’s apartment he was importuning her to have sexual relations with him. “I told him to leave me alone, to get away from me and I was pushing him and he was pushing me and he struck me.” He grabbed her arm and pulled her in the bedroom and threw her down on the bed. These acts of assault and battery were not an element of the kidnapping but a separate and distinct offense. We hold that there was no merger of the [assault] into the convictions under the [kidnapping] counts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pair v. State““Assuming that those under 25 years of age were eliminated, from the jury in Hunt’s trial .we see no constitutional infirmity. There is nothing unreasonable in requiring a juror to be at least 25 years old. There must be some cut-off point and Hunt does not explain, nor do we see, why equal protection is denied at a 25 years of age cut-off but afforded, as he seems to suggest, at a 21 years of age cut-off. See Britton v. Bullen, 275 F. Supp. 756 (4th Cir.).””
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.