201 Md. App. 589 - Britton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “fAfppellant assaulted Officer Moreau with his car in an act that was completely separate from his a,cts of assaulting the officers with his fists and feet in the brawl that ensued several minutes later. Moreover, it appears that the ramming of Officer Moreau’s car was a gratuitous act and not part of appellant’s resisting arrest, as the officer was not in active pursuit of appellant when that act occurred. Thus, the offense of assaulting Officer Moreau and the offense of resisting arrest were based on distinct acts, separated by time and geography, and merger of the convictions is not required.”

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

2. “[W]hen the trial court is required to merge convictions for sentencing purposes but, instead, imposes a separate sentence for each unmerged conviction, it commits reversible error. ... [S]uch an error implicates the illegality of imposing “multiple sentences ... for the same offense.” ... [T]he result is the imposition of a sentence “not permitted by law.””

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