State v. Bricker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 135 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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When interpreting a statute, the starting point is the wording of the relevant provisions. If ‘the language in question [is] so clearly consistent with apparent purpose (and not productive of any absurd result) ... further research [is] unnecessary.’ Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 515 , 525 A.2d 628, 633 (1987). In the event that ambiguity clouds the precise application of the statute, the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent. Taxiera v. Malkus, 320 Md. 471, 480 , 578 A.2d 761, 765 (1990); Harford County v. University, 318 Md. 525, 529 , 569 A.2d 649, 651 (1990); Jones v. State, 311 Md. 398, 405 , 535 A.2d 471, 474 (1988); In re Ramont K., 305 Md. 482, 484 , 505 A.2d 507, 508 (1986). To perform this task, legislative intent should be gleaned first from the phrasing of the statute itself, giving the words their ‘ordinary and popularly understood meaning, absent a manifest contrary legislative intention.’ In re Arnold M., 298 Md. 515, 520 , 471 A.2d 313, 315 (1984). See also Jones, 311 Md. at 405 , 535 A.2d at 474 . When engaging in the interpretive process, however, the purpose, aim or policy of the legislature cannot be disregarded. Taxiera, 320 Md. at 480 , 578 A.2d at 765 ; Harford County v. University, 318 Md. at 529 , 569 A.2d at 651 ; Kaczorowski, 309 Md. at 513 , 525 A.2d at 632 . Resultant conclusions are to be reasonable, logical and consistent with common sense. Harford County v. University, 318 Md”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. (1997) · 117 Md. App. 443 - Fischer v. State

2. “(b) An applicant for a social work associate license shall have a baccalaureate degree: (1) From an accredited college or university; and (2) Based on a social work program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education. (c) An applicant for a graduate social worker license shall have: (1) A master’s degree from an accredited college or university and based on a graduate social work program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education; or (2) A doctorate degree in social work from an accredited college or university. (d) (1) An applicant for a certified social worker license shall have: (i) A master’s degree from an accredited college or university and based on a graduate social work program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education; and (ii) 2 years of social work experience as a social worker where face-to-face supervision is part of the employment contract and the supervisor is a licensed certified social worker and is provided by and accountable to the employer after receiving the master’s degree. (2) An applicant for a certified social worker-clinical license shall have: (i) A master's degree in social work and documentation of clinical course work from an accredited college or university and based on a graduate social work program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education; and (ii) 2 years of supervised clinical social work experience of at least 3,000 hours after receiving the master’s degree with a minimum of 144 hours of periodic direct fa”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. CCJ14746

3. ““The designation of a witness as an expert is a subject of broad judicial discretion in most instances. When there is a statute directly on point, however, the expert must meet the enumerated qualifications. A psychiatrist who was not licensed in Maryland nevertheless was allowed to testify as an expert in a ‘defective delinquency’ proceeding. Crews v. Director, 245 Md. 174 , 225 A.2d 436 (1967). We explained that the common law does not require a medical expert witness to be licensed. This Court further stated that ‘[i]n Maryland this requirement has not been introduced by statute ... ’ Id. at 179 , 225 A.2d at 438 , thereby implying that the result likely would have been different if a statute had set forth minimum criteria for an expert in a particular situation.” (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Md. App. 207 - Yount v. State