163 Md. App. 322 - Giddins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When dealing with a generic category or portmanteau phenomenon such as double jeopardy, it is indispensable at the outset to identify the particular species of double jeopardy being invoked. There are no less than four such species within the genus “double jeopardy.” Each carries with it a different history; each serves a different purpose; each has different implementing rules. The broad umbrella term we call “double jeopardy” today embraces (in its federal manifestation) four distinct species: 1) classic former jeopardy, arising out of the common law pleas at bar of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit; 2) simultaneous jeopardy, involving largely issues of merger and multiple punishment and lying on the at-times blurred boundary between constitutional law and statutory construction; 3) the problem of retrial following mistrial; and 4) collateral estoppel.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 198 Md. App. 655 - Moore v. State

2. “The actual issue of double jeopardy in this case arose only 1) when the State, on July 8, 2004, requested that the case be docketed for retrial; and 2) when the appellant, on July 23, then interposed the plea in bar of double jeopardy. The issue of double jeopardy was argued before Judge Groton on September 13 and ruled on by him on September 16. That is the only ruling that concerns us on this appeal. It is, moreover, the only actual ruling that was made in this case.”

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

3. “THE COURT: Before the jury is brought back in, I just want to make it clear on the search warrant. I don’t see where it’s necessary to say—I don’t even know if this was a major one or not, but—a drug investigation. But just simply say, his investigation, he applied for a search and seizure warrant, and then you went in and you served it and take it from there.”

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