Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 Md. App. 145 - Brown v. State

234 Md. App. 145 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2017

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mustafa v. State · Gardner v. State · Dixon v. State · Dickerson v. Longoria · 109 Md. App. 620 - Lemley v. Lemley

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

  1. “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the real and actual intent of the Legislature. A court's primary goal in interpreting statutory language is to discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by the statutory provision under scrutiny. To ascertain the intent of the General Assembly, we begin with the normal, plain meaning of the statute. If the language of the statute is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute's apparent purpose, our inquiry as to the legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written without resort to other rules of construction. We neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, and we do not construe a statute with "forced or subtle interpretations" that limit or extend its application. * * * In every case, the statute must be given a reasonable interpretation, not one that is absurd, illogical or incompatible with common sense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the judgment of the [c]ircuit [c]ourt will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.... [T]he findings of fact of the trial judge must be accepted unless there was no legally sufficient evidence or proper inferences therefrom, from which the court could find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]hen reviewing bench trials, we review findings of fact under the 'clearly erroneous' standard, meaning that '[a] finding of a trial court is not clearly erroneous if there is competent or material evidence in the record to support the court's conclusion.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.