26 Md. App. 94 - Caldwell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably Galloway v. State (2001), State v. Gattis (1986)
2 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Screws v. United States · Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville · Lanzetta v. State New Jersey · Coates v. City of Cincinnati
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court, indeed, has recognized that the requirement of a specific intent to do a prohibited act may avoid those consequences to the accused which may otherwise render a vague or indefinite statute invalid. The constitutional vice in such a statute is the essential injustice to the accused of placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which the statute does not define and hence of which it gives no warning. But where the punishment imposed is only for an act knowingly done with the purpose of doing that which the statute prohibits, the accused cannot be said to suffer from lack of warning or knowledge that the act which he does in violation of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The state of one's mind or scienter is a question of fact. Putinski v. State, supra [ 223 Md. 1 , 161 A.2d 117 (1960) ]; Tufts v. Poore, 219 Md. 1 , 147 A.2d 717 . And being subjective in nature, proof of wrongful intent is seldom direct, but is usually inferred from proven circumstances. Felkner v. State, 218 Md. 300 , 146 A.2d 424 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is unlawful for any person to make use of telephone facilities or equipment... (2) for repeated calls, if with intent to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass one or more persons;””
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.