Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 Md. 1 - Kirsner v. State

Kirsner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2022

21 state decisions

60194419501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Weinstein v. State · Petrushansky v. State · Jackson v. State · Mohler v. State · 46 Tex. Crim. 296 - Scales v. State

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

  1. “The object of all pleading, civil and criminal, is to present a single issue in regard to the same subject matter; hence, it is against this fundamental rule to permit two or more distinct offenses to be joined in the same count. It is, therefore, the general rule that an indictment charging the commission of two or more substantive offenses in the same count is objectionable as being duplicitous. See also Maryland Rule 716a, [now Rule 4-203(a) ] providing that “Two or more offenses may be charged in the same indictment in a separate count for each offense.” (Emphasis supplied.) (Citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The general rule of the common law is that an indictment should not charge the commission of two or more substantive offenses in the same count, and in the event that it does so it is objectionable because of duplicity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.