McGrath v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Chow v. State (2006), Abeokuto v. State (2006)
58 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 State v. Lancaster · State v. Jenkins · Thomas v. State · Monoker v. State · Snowden 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The required evidence test focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter. Stated another way, the required evidence is that which is minimally necessary to secure a conviction for each [] offense. If each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, or in other words, if each offense contains an element which the other does not, there is no merger under the required evidence test even though both offenses are based upon the same act or acts. But, where only one offense requires proof of an additional fact, so that all elements of one offense are present in the other, and where both offenses are based on the same act or acts, [ ] merger follows [ ].””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“" § 5-601. Possessing or administering controlled dangerous substance. (a) In general.—Except as otherwise provided in this title, a person may not: (1) possess or administer to another a controlled dangerous substance, unless obtained directly or by prescription or order from an authorized provider acting in the course of professional practice;.... (c) Penalty.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 4 years or a fine not exceeding $25,000 or both. (2) A person whose violation of this section involves the use or possession of marijuana is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) Unauthorized control over property. — A person may not willfully or knowingly obtain or exert unauthorized control over propei'ty, if the person: (1) intends to deprive the owner of the property; (2) willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property; or (3) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property. * * * (c) Possessing stolen personal property. — (1) A person may not possess stolen personal property knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen, if the person: (i) intends to deprive the owner of the property; (ii) willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property; or (iii) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing that the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property. (g) Penalty. — (1) A person convicted of theft of property or services with a value of $500 or more is guilty of a felony and: (i) is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 15 years or a fíne not exceeding $25,000 or both; and (ii) shall restore the property taken to the owner or pay the owner the value of the property or services. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection,[ 4 ] a person convicted of theft of property or services with a value of less than $500, is guilty of a misdemeanor and: (i) ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.