Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 state decisions

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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"killing another person (other than by poison or lying in wait) with the intent to kill, but without the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder; killing another person with the intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would be the likely result; and what has become known as depraved heart murder—a killing resulting from `the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not.'"”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mitchell v. State · Poe v. State

2. ““The State counters by contending that in the criminal context a defendant may raise the bar of collateral estoppel only when an ‘issue of ultimate fact’ has been determined in her favor by an acquittal. Since Robinson was convicted of assault with intent to disable, says the State, she cannot raise collateral estoppel. We reject the State’s position. Although both Ashe and Powers v. State, 285 Md. 269 , 401 A.2d 1031 involved acquittals, the language we have just quoted from the former case makes it clear that the critical consideration is whether ‘an issue of ultimate fact’ has been determined in favor of a defendant. The process by which that determination is made, whether by acquittal or conviction, is not critical.” (emphasis in original).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ferrell v. State · Butler v. State

3. “The standard has been codified in terms of activity which manifests “extreme indifference to the value of human life” and which creates a grave risk of death,” or “where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.” In other words, the intent to do an act in wanton and wilful disregard of the obvious likelihood of causing death or great bodily injury is a malicious intent. The word “wanton” is the key word here.... The difference is that in the act of the shooter there is an element of viciousness—an extreme indifference to the value of human life—that is not found in the act of the motorist. And it is the viciousness which makes the act “wanton” as well as “wilful.” (footnotes omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 101 Md. App. 47 - Alston v. State