12 Md. App. 655 - Mason v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The problem is one of elementary multiplication. If the most serious charge on trial is a non-penitentiary offense, the multiplicand is four and the multiplier is one, no matter how many such offenses are on trial and no matter how many defendants are on trial, unless multiple defendants have adverse or hostile interests. If the most serious charge on trial is a capital or penitentiary offense, the multiplicand is twenty; the multiplier is not the number of charges on trial but rather the number of persons on trial — in this case, one.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bundy v. State · 46 Md. App. 536 - Dean v. State

2. “"It is well-settled that an indictment is sufficient if it informs the person charged of the accusation against him as required by Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and if the charge is made with sufficient definiteness to enable him to prepare his defense and to prevent the accused from being charged again with the same offense in a future prosecution. Lynch v. State, 2 Md. App. 546, certiorari denied in Lynch v. State, 89 S.Ct. 236 ; Reagan v. State, 4 Md. App. 590 ; Presley v. State, 6 Md. App. 419 ; Boddie & Brooks v. State, 6 Md. App. 523 ; and Ward v. State, 9 Md. App. 583 . Both counts of the indictment informed the appellant with reasonable certainty of the charges against him, and actually specified the pertinent section of Article 27, which he allegedly violated. The drug was described as an hallucinogenic drug, and it is clear from a cursory reading of the indictment and the statute which is referred to in the indictment that the appellant is charged with a violation of Section 313B(b) of Article 27.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fitzsimmons v. State

3. “"The limitation placed upon such delegation is that the statute authorizing the delegation must guide and restrain the discretion vested in the subordinate official by standards sufficient 'to protect the citizen against arbitrary or unreasonable exercise thereof.’ Tighe v. Osborne, 149 Md. 349, 360 . After discussing the necessary discretion which must be permitted to governmental officials, in an increasingly complex society wherein it is impractical, if not impossible, to summons the Legislature to meet every new contingency, Judge Henderson, in Givner v. Commissioner of Health, 207 Md. 184, 191 , explained that '[i]n the field of public health, still more flexible standards are permitted. The concept of public health is more definite than that of general welfare, and there is a practical necessity for expert interpretation in its application to concrete situations.’ ” 12 Md. App. at 675-76 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 55 Md. App. 150 - State v. Ciccarelli