West v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Kelly (2007), Khalifa v. State (2004)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 Breeding v. State · Eastgate Associates v. Apper · Gardner v. State · Buxton v. Buxton · Bowen 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not permit prosecution of an offense in every jurisdiction in which any element of the offense takes place. Instead, the common law rule generally focuses on one element, which is deemed “essential” or “key” or “vital” or the “gravamen” of the offense, and the offense may be prosecuted only in a jurisdiction where that essential or key element takes place.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[tjerritorial jurisdiction describes the concept that only when an offense is committed within the boundaries of the court’s jurisdictional geographic territory, which generally is within the boundaries of the respective states, may the case be tried in that state.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Thus, in Wright v. State, [ 339 Md. 399 , 663 A.2d 590 (1995)], the Court suggested that, with regard to theft based on larceny after trust, either the state where the conversion occurred or the state where there was a duty to account would have territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, larceny may be prosecuted in any state into which the thief transports the stolen goods. Pennington [ ], 308 Md. at 730, n. 3 , 521 A.2d 1216 ; Worthington v. State, 58 Md. 403, 409-410 (1882) (stating, with regard to larceny, that “at common law, every asportation is a new taking”). Finally, with regard to certain offenses, “where causing a particular result constitutes an element of the offense” and “forms an essential ingredient of the offense,” the state of the intended result may prosecute even if all of the other elements of the offense occurred elsewhere. Pennington [ ], 308 Md. at 733-34 , 521 A.2d 1216 .”
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.