Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 Md. App. 540 - Moore v. State

23 Md. App. 540 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
6
states following
March 2008
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably Abeokuto v. State (2006), Lawson v. State (2005)

37 state decisions

1301974198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Sedillo v. United States · Harris v. United States

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

  1. ““Every person, his counsellors, aiders or abettors, who shall be convicted of the crime of kidnapping and forcibly or fraudulently carrying or causing to be carried out of or within this State any person, except in the case of a minor[ 2 ] , by a parent thereof, with intent to have such person carried out of or within this State, or with the intent to have such person concealed within the State or without the State, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to death[ 3 ] or to the penitentiary for not more than thirty years, in the discretion of the court.” (Emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the instant case the victim was dragged from her apartment and carried several blocks into the accused's apartment. These actions completed the crime of kidnapping. Thereafter, the crime of rape occurred; the kidnapping was in no way an essential element of that crime because that crime could just as easily have occurred at the victim's apartment. It is not necessary for the State to prove the rape to establish the kidnapping nor to prove the kidnapping to establish the rape. The decision that the kidnapping and rape did not merge is based on only the facts of the instant case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Be it enacted, by the General Assembly of Maryland, That every person, his or her counsellors, aiders or abettors, who shall be duly convicted of kidnapping, and forcibly or fraudulently stealing, taking or carrying away, any white child or children under the age of sixteen years, shall be sentenced to undergo a confinement in the penitentiary for a period of time not less than five years, nor more than twelve years, there to be treated as the law directs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.