14 Md. App. 465 - Killie 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. ““The appellant argues that the evidence at bar did not show that the proscribed conduct in his home was of a ‘recurrent’ or ‘repeated’ nature. He looks to Ward v. State, 9 Md. App. 583, 593 , and Beard v. State, 71 Md. 275 , as support for his proposition that a ‘common nuisance’ within the contemplation of Section 286 (a) (5) need be a place ‘habitually resorted to’ for unlawful purposes or ‘habitually kept.’ Both Ward and Beard , however, were dealing with the common law offense of keeping a disorderly house. It is not, in the factual posture of this case, necessary for us to decide whether the use of the phrase ‘common nuisance’ in Section 286 (a) (5) or the use of the phrase ‘which is resorted to’ contemplate that the offense must be of a continuing or habitual character, analogous to the offense of keeping a common law disorderly house. We need not decide the question here, because the evidence would support the conviction even if more than a single ‘resort’ to the house for unlawful activity were required.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Md. App. 116 - Skinner v. State

2. ““The qualifying phrase setting out the additional element that the controlled dangerous substance shall be ‘in sufficient quantity to reasonably indicate ... ’ modifies only the act of possessing and not the subsection’s alternatively proscribed acts of manufacturing, distributing, or dispensing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 21 Md. App. 39 - State v. Beers