128 Md. App. 274 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[E]ven if the hospital conversation had been excluded, appellant’s confession after receiving the standard Miranda warning would have been admissible in the absence of evidence that either it or the hospital conversation had been coerced. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), in which the Supreme Court held that a subsequent confession after Miranda warnings was not rendered inadmissible by prior uncoerced remarks in response to interrogation without Miranda warnings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Md. App. 1 - Ashford v. State

2. “The taking of property from the person of another, accompanied either by force sufficient to overcome resistance or by putting the victim in sufficient fear to refrain from resistance is the same as taking by violence or putting in fear. If the victim, put in fear by such words as “This is a stick up,” uttered by one carrying an object that appears to the victim to be a possible weapon, does not resist the taking of her property, the theft accompanied by putting in fear is a theft by putting in fear.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fetrow v. State

3. “[d]isfigurement is generally regarded as an externally visible blemish or scar that impairs one's appearance”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Petion