State v. Intercontinental, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Insurance (1986), Frost v. State (1994)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 74 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 Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Gouled v. United States · Kennedy v. Powell · State v. Fabritz · Hornbeck v. Somerset County Board of Education
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To ascertain and effectuate the actual legislative intention in enacting any statute is, of course, the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation. Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984). In this regard, the primary source of legislative intent is the language of the statute itself. Blum v. Blum, 295 Md. 135 , 453 A.2d 824 (1983). Where the statutory provisions are unambiguous, no construction is required, In Re Arnold M., 298 Md. 515 , 471 A.2d 313 (1984), so that a plainly worded statute must be construed without forced or subtle interpretations designed to extend or limit the scope of its operation. Guy v. Director, 279 Md. 69 , 367 A.2d 946 (1977). But where a statute is plainly susceptible of more than one meaning, construction is required; in such circumstances, courts may consider not only the literal or usual meaning of words, but their meaning and effect in light of the setting, the objectives and purpose of the enactment. Hornbeck v. Somerset Co. Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 597 , 458 A.2d 758 (1983); State v. Fabritz, 276 Md. 416 , 348 A.2d 275 (1975).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Maryland law no longer restricts the type of property which is subject to seizure. We have adopted the Warden v. Hayden formulation that fruits or instrumentalities of a crime, contraband, or mere evidence is property subject to seizure under the law of Maryland. See State v. Boone, 284 Md. 1, 11, 393 A.2d 1361 (1978); State v. Wilson, 279 Md. 189, 196 , 367 A.2d 1223 (1977).”
1 later decision 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.