32 Md. App. 593 - Chester v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2018
2 district · 15 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 Perry v. Sindermann · Elrod v. Burns · Costello v. United States · Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY · Dennis v. United States
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny corrupt violation by an officer in any of these three ways is a common-law misdemeanor known by some such name as 'misconduct in office' or 'official misconduct.' "). As these cases and the case before us illustrate, the measure of what constitutes official misconduct is an imbricating continuum of proof that runs from evidence of conduct squarely within an officer's discretion undertaken with corrupt intent (misfeasance)-to evidence of conduct clearly exceeding an official's scope of authority such that corrupt intent can be assumed (malfeasance). Conduct that toes the sometimes murky line between what is and what isn't within an officer's scope of authority, 8 falls within the overlay on this continuum. One thing is certain: regardless of where on the spectrum between malfeasance and misfeasance that Sewell's alleged conduct falls, the ambit of his discretion remains central in the State's case for official misconduct. B. Sufficiency of the Evidence Sewell's initial challenge on appeal is to the sufficiency of the evidence. Unless the State presented sufficient evidence at trial to convict him of official misconduct, "there c[an] be no new trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“neglect or non-performance of any positive duty imposed by law; oppressive and wilful abuse of authority (to be distinguished from mere error of judgment); extortion; fraud or breach of trust affecting the public, such as rendering, passing or procuring false accounts, or wilfully neglecting to account for money received, or corruptly retaining money found upon a prisoner; grossly indecorous conduct, such as sitting as a justice while drunk, or getting drunk during time of service as a grand juror.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.