12 Md. App. 346 - Goldsborough v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘[I]n a narrow sense, a contempt has been defined as á despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court; in a more general sense, a person whose conduct tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, interferes with or prejudices parties or their witnesses during litigation, or otherwise tends to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court in the discharge of its duties, has committed a contempt.’”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cameron v. State · 99 Md. App. 60 - Betz v. State

2. ““(Ijf Ms remark was made under an honestly entertained, though mistaken, view of the law, the fact .alone that it may have tended to prejudice the State’s .ease would not, without more, constitute contempt. See United States v. Sopher, 347 F. 2d 415 (7th Cir.); Steinberg v. United States, 162 F. 2d 120 (5th Cir.); Sprinkle v. Davis, 111 F. 2d 925 (4th Cir.). While it is never a complete defense to a charge of contemptuous conduct that no such ■conduct was intended, Ex Parte Bowles, supra, at pp. 332-333, where the act comprising the alleged contempt is not plainly contemptuous on its face, a claim of good faith has been held entitled to serious consideration .and has been found determinative in some cases. See May Hosiery Mills v. United States District Court, 64 F. 2d 450 (9th Cir.); Caldwell v. United States, 28 F. 2d 684 (9th Cir.); Sprinkle v. Davis, supra; 17 C.J.S. Contempt, p. 20.” 12 Md. App. at 357 , 278 A. 2d at 629 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Giant of Maryland, Inc. v. State's Attorney

3. ““[W]e are uncertain whether the trial judge considered the crucial element of whether Goldsborough intentionally and with calculated prejudicial purpose, made the improper argument, knowing that it was improper, or not caring whether it was or not. Under these circumstances, we deem it expedient to remand the case for further consideration by the trial judge in light of the principles developed in this opinion.” 12 Md. App. at 358-59 , 278 A. 2d at 630 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Giant of Maryland, Inc. v. State's Attorney