2 Md. App. 692 - Tender v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““B. The basis of the contention of the appellants that the in-court identifications of them and testimony relating to the identifications of them at lineups were inadmissible as resulting from an illegal arrest is under the doctrine of Wong Sun v. United States, supra, and the cases following its principles. It has been held that the doctrine of Wong Sun was not intended to, and does not, control prosecutions in state courts, Crowe and Williston v. State, 240 Md. 144, 150 , and this Court has held that Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 did not compel the exclusion of testimony as to the identification of an accused in a lineup, as such testimony was not ‘tangible’ evidence which was the fruit of an unlawful search. Nadolski v. State, 1 Md. App. 304, 308 . There is nothing per se unconstitutional about a lineup and it is not here alleged that the lineups were unfair or unreliable. See Powell v. State, 1 Md. App. 495 . We find that the in-court identifications and the testimony as to the identifications of the appellants at the lineups were properly admissible under the rules of law then applicable, even assuming that the arrests were illegal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Md. App. 702 - Veihmeyer v. State

2. “This Court follows the rule that the failure to consummate the commission of an offense is a necessary ingredient in an attempt to commit that offense. Having been convicted of committing robbery with a deadly weapon, the appellants cannot be found to have failed to commit it, which is a necessary ingredient in the proof of the attempt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Lakeysha P.

3. ““We recognize that a person should not be twice punished for the same acts whether the offenses charged by reason of such acts be deemed to be inconsistent, duplicitous or to have merged.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4 Md. App. 219 - Lievers v. State