Huger v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably Bagwell v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center (1995), Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc. (2008)
21 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 Johnson v. State · Belcher v. Government Employees Insurance · Berry v. Scott · 38 Md. App. 343 - Gray v. State · Brooks v. State
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Each person appointed under this subtitle as a special police officer is charged with the protection and preservation of peace and good order on the property described in the application for the commission. The officer has the powers to arrest persons who trespass or commit offenses thereon. The officer has, and may exercise, the powers of a police officer upon the property described in the application for the commission and may exercise these powers in any county or city of the State in connection with the care, custody, and protection of other property of the requesting authority or other property, real or personal, for which it has assumed an obligation to maintain or protect. [[Image here]] The officer may exercise this power only upon the property of the officer’s employer as described in the application for the commission unless the officer is in active pursuit of an individual for the purpose of immediate apprehension....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“commonly understood . . . [to mean] . . . a person charged with the duty to enforce and preserve the public peace.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“: a person charged with enforcing and preserving the public peace. The similarity of this charge and that set out for special police officers in Article 41, § 4-905 supported the Court's finding. As the Court observed: In other words, a person may be a peace officer by reason of being a special policeman or a constable, or a sheriff or a member of the State or local police department. We see nothing contrary to the scheme of the District Rules in the limitation of the types of peace officers who may perform certain functions . . . . The rules do not use”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. (1998)
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.