24 Md. App. 695 - Dill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably 61 Md. App. 436 - Anderson v. State (1985), 97 Cal. App. 4th 920 - People v. Massicot (2002)
23 state decisions
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 Williams v. Illinois · Tate v. Short · Lutz v. State · Height v. State · State Ex Rel. Sonner v. Shearin
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The authorities ... are in substantial accord that at the common law indecent exposure was the wilful and intentional exposure of the private parts of one’s body in a public place in the presence of an assembly. Thus, its main elements were the wilful exposure, the public place in which it was performed, and the presence of persons who saw it.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It would be palpably absurd, completely unreasonable, and inconsistent with common sense to hold that the common law had not been supplanted by the statute. To conclude otherwise would be to attribute an intention to the legislature to permit the prosecution of offenders either for the common law crime, with its penalty of imprisonment limited only by the reasonable discretion of the sentencing judge and the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishments, or for the statutory offense, with its maximum penalty of a fine of $50, even though the proof necessary to justify a conviction in either case would be precisely the same.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In other words private indecency was exclusively under the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical court but public indecency of an extreme nature was indictable. And, in the early view, indecent exposure of the person was merely one form of obscene exhibition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wisneski v. State
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.