193 Md. App. 371 - FURDA v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “yes” or “no,” you could say, "see footnote.” The footnote says, "This is what [the judge] said. I think she’s wrong. In fact, I’ve appealed her all the way to the Supreme Court of Mars. But here are the facts. So I'm not making a false statement and I’m not misleading anybody[.]” The court later explained that even if there was no footnote section to the application, Furda could have attached his motion for reconsideration to the application: [P] robably nobody could have stopped him from [attaching the motion for reconsideration], I know there may not be a section on it that says “Please write footnotes here,” but just like there’s no such statement on U.S. Income Tax Returns or other statements made to federal agencies, people have been doing it for years to avoid what we have here. It’s not rocket science. It’s not novel. It’s not hindsight by 20/20. It’s people are careful when you make a statements to a federal or state agency that it's scrupulously true. 10 . Although Congress has not defined "committed to a mental institution,” as it is used in 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)(4), our Court of Special Appeals established some minimum requirements for the term after examining "the legislative history, federal regulations passed pursuant to the statute, and case law interpreting the statute[.]”

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

2. “the logic of jurisdictions that have construed “committed” as applying to situations in which, at the very least, the patient has been afforded an evidentiary hearing, held either by a court or a hearing officer; the patient or the defendant has a right to appear and has the right to counsel; and findings are made by the factfinder, based on competent medical evidence. In the absence of such minimal safeguards, the term does not extend to a brief hospitalization for purposes of an emergency mental health evaluation.[ 9 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 199 Md. App. 204 - Ali v. State

3. “failing] to comply with [the Protective Order] ... dated September 21, 2004, issued under Section 4 — 506 of the Family Law Article, that ordered the respondent to refrain from contacting and attempting to contact Karen Furda, by contacting her in writing, and is a subsequent offender, in violation of Section 4-509 of the Family Law Article against the peace, government, and dignity of the State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 Md. App. 1 - Furda v. State