Lloyd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 31 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The sentence for the assault and battery on his wife was not illegal and did not, as the defendant contends, subject him to cruel and unusual punishment. The defendant contends that for the assault and battery on his wife he should not have been fined more than $100 or imprisoned in excess of one year instead of the sentence of eighteen months he received. Citing Heath v. State, [ 198 Md. 455 , 85 A.2d 43 (1951) ], [common law rights are subject to change by the legislature], he insists that the unlimited common law penalty for assault and battery was superseded by the penalty fixed by § 140, supra, as amended. We do not agree. Section 410, supra, as amended, fixed only the jurisdiction of the police magistrates in Baltimore City and did not in any way affect, alter or modify the power and authority of the Criminal Court of Baltimore to impose punishment for the common law offense of simple assault and battery. [W]e think it is clear that § 140, supra, as amended, did no more than fix the maximum penalty that a police magistrate has authority to impose upon a person brought before him charged with assault and battery. When the prosecuting officer prayed a jury trial, as he had a right to do under the statute, the police magistrate was thereby divested of any further jurisdiction over the defendant, who, by operation of law, immediately became subject to the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of Baltimore as fully and effectually as if it had acquired jurisdiction originally.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stubbs v. State

2. ““An assault and battery, when tried by the Criminal Court of Baltimore or the Circuit Court of a county— whether on a state warrant, an information or an indictment or de novo on appeal — being a common-law offense, there is no statutory limitation on the punishment which may be imposed therefor by a criminal court.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4 Md. App. 85 - Weddle v. State