Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 326 Md. 436 - Minor v. State

Minor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Massis v. Mukasey (2008), 101 Md. App. 1 - Wieland v. State (1994)

4 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

2001992200020102020decided

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 Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia · Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Insurance · West v. State · Wilson v. State

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

  1. “[G]uilt under the [reckless-endangerment] statute does not depend upon whether the accused intended that his reckless conduct create a substantial risk of death or serious injury to another.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be. of such nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.” (emphasis supplied).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The elements of a prima facie case of reckless endangerment are: 1) that the defendant engaged in conduct that created a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another; 2) that a reasonable person would not have engaged in that conduct; and 3) that the defendant acted recklessly.”
    4 later decisions 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.