194 Md. App. 1 - Furda v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1202 · 18 U.S.C. § 1623 · 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 925
Relies on Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts · W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, International Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers · Cheek v. United States · Lewis v. United States · Walker v. City of Birmingham
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I was submitted to an emergency evaluation petition through the courts by my now ex-wife.... [She] filed a motion [of] false statements ... saying that I had threatened her and the children, which I had never done. ... [T]he Montgomery County Sheriffs Department was sent to my house, and did take me to Montgomery General.... I was then transferred to Potomac Ridge for the I guess 72-hour evaluation that is allowable by the courts ... I had ... read the discharge [which] stated that the doctor had a dilemma as to whether or not to commit me. However, there was no psychosis, no withdrawals, or bad presence, or anything like that. And that without any type of hearing or any adjudication I was released.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Furda v. State“In order to convict the defendant of perjury by affidavit, the State must prove: (1) that the defendant declared under the penalty of perjury that a written document was true; (2) that the writing contained a false statement; (3) that the false statement was given wilfully, rather than as a result of confusion or honest mistake; (4) that the defendant knew the statement was false at the time it was given; and (5) that the false statement was material, that is, it related to the reason why the affidavit was prepared.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Furda v. State“[PROSECUTOR]: Now, ... you said [that] you discussed [the Denial Order] with your client. [FURDA’S ATTORNEY]: Yes, the first order. [PROSECUTOR]: ... Unquestionably then Mr. Furda understood that [the court] ruled that he was a prohibited] person because he was involuntarily committed, correct? [FURDA’S ATTORNEY]: That would be the essence of [the Denial Order]. [PROSECUTOR]: And you discussed that with him? [FURDA’S ATTORNEY]: Correct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Furda v. State
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.