Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 325 Md. 230 - Dean v. State

Dean v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
3
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

46 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Balbos (1992), Ball v. State (1997)

46 state decisions

200199220002010decided

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 Beck v. Alabama · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Keeble v. United States · Spaziano v. Florida

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

  1. “In the instant case, unlike Hook, Jackson, and Fairbanks , the challenged nol pros involves a lesser related offense, not a lesser included offense. Dean does not contend, nor can he, that assault with intent to disfigure is a lesser included offense of attempted murder; clearly they are separate and distinct crimes. Assault with intent to disfigure requires the specific intent to disfigure whereas attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill. Therefore, we hold that the limitation placed on a prosecutor’s authority to nol pros a charge set forth in Hooks [Hook ] and Fairbanks is not applicable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In reviewing the denial of a request for an instruction on a lesser offense ... we must consider whether there exists, in light of the evidence presented at trial, a rational basis upon which the jury could have concluded that the defendant was guilty of the lesser offense, but not guilty of the greater offense. If a rational jury could not reach this conclusion, then the judge need not submit the lesser offense to the jury.”
    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.