Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 Md. App. 538 - Handy v. State

175 Md. App. 538 - Handy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 191 Md. App. 297 - Neal v. State (2010), 205 Md. App. 227 - Rich v. State (2012)

25 state decisions

160200720102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 924

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brown v. Ohio · Soberon v. United States · Bell v. United States · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand

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

  1. ““ ‘Circumstantial evidence alone is “sufficient to support a conviction, provided the circumstances support rational inferences from which a trier of fact could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.” ’ Handy, 175 Md.App. at 562 [ 930 A.2d 1111 ]. However, ‘a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone mil not be sustained unless the circumstances, taken together, are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. ’ Handy, 175 Md.App. at 562 [ 930 A.2d 1111 ], Here, the Appellant asserts that the evidence against him was com pletely circumstantial and that there was a reasonable hypothesis that the driver ejected the CDS from the vehicle.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.