Hardy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Lancaster (1993), State v. Faulkner (1984)
6 federal appellate · 105 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 United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Florida v. Royer · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Newton v. State · General Motors Corp. v. Lahocki
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the evidence satisfied the fact finder by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of the defendant falls within the proscribed conduct in the statute labeled as first degree murder that did not result in death of the victim, the crime of attempted murder in the first degree has been established. If the evidence of criminal culpability is something less, the crime may be attempted murder in the second degree or attempted voluntary manslaughter.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In 1809, the General Assembly enacted a comprehensive codification of various common-law offenses. [Chapter] 139 of the Acts of 1809. This legislation, modeled on a 1794 Pennsylvania statute, divided the crime of murder, as known at common-law, into first and second degree murder. See Campbell v. State, 293 Md. 438, 441 , 444 A.2d 1034, 1036 (1982). In a seminal decision interpreting this 1809 Maryland law, our predecessors stated that this law did `not create a new offense in distinguishing between murder of the first and second degrees. The design was to discriminate in awarding the punishment[,]' Weighorst v. State, 7 Md. 442, 451 (1855), not to define new crimes. Davis v. State, 39 Md. 355, 373 (1874). Thus, from Weighorst to the present, we have consistently maintained that the 1809 Act did not abolish the common-law concept of murder, but merely divided it into degrees for punishment purposes. E.g., Campbell v. State, supra, 293 Md. at 441 , 444 A.2d 1034 ; State v. Ward, supra, 284 Md. at 205, 396 A.2d 1041 ; Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 268 , 373 A.2d 262 (1977); Gladden v. State, 273 Md. 383, 389-90 , 330 A.2d 176 (1974); Stansbury v. State, 218 Md. 255, 260 , 146 A.2d 17 (1958); Davis v. State, supra, 39 Md. at 374 ; Weighorst v. State, supra, 7 Md. at 451 . That one may be charged with common-law murder in lieu of the shortened statutory form prescribed in § 616 of Article 27 is well-settled. State v. Ward, supra, 284 Md. at 200-01 , 396 A.2d 1041 ; Wood v. State”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[e]very person convicted of the crime of an assault with intent to murder is guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years nor more than 30 years.”
2 later decisions 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.