29 Md. App. 45 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently January 2021
17 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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · 28 Md. App. 640 - Evans v. State · State Ex Rel. Sonner v. Shearin · 8 Md. App. 100 - Lindsay v. State · 16 Md. App. 472 - Jones 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An assault is any attempt unlawfully to apply the least actual force to the person of another. In these cases, assault with intent to murder goes a little further than common assault. This is what I understand the law of Maryland to be relative to the charge with intent to murder. Intent is the essence of the felony of assault with intent to murder. If the intent was carried out, the resulting crime would have had to be either first or second degree rather than manslaughter. A specific intent to murder is not a necessary element for a conviction of assault with intent to murder. It is sufficient if there was an intention to commit grievous bodily harm. The essential distinction between murder and manslaughter is the presence or absence of malice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘[Article XV, Section 5 of the Maryland Constitution] contemplates that it is within the proper province of the jury to resolve conflicting interpretations of the law and to decide whether the law should be applied in dubious factual situations. Schanker v. State, 208 Md. 15 . It does not confer upon them, however, untrammeled discretion to enact new law or to repeal or ignore clearly existing law as whim, fancy, compassion or malevolence should dictate, even within the limited confines of a single criminal case.’ ” 29 Md. App. at 52 , 349 A. 2d at 389 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blackwell v. State““ ‘Well, those are certainly not infamous crimes, and they are certainly not crimes involving moral turpitude. So the question is whether they are crimes which have some tendency to show that the witness is not to be believed under oath. I don’t think they are.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Huston 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.