Pete v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Chow v. State (2006), Mayor of Oakland v. Mayor of Mountain Lake Park (2006)
85 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 Walczak v. State · Price v. State · Government Employees Insurance v. Insurance Commissioner · State v. Bricker · Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Fitzpatrick
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is easy to see on this record that the damage to the police cruiser could not be a direct result of the assault on another individual that occurred approximately two hours earlier than the vehicle collision.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘In some cases, the statutory text reveals ambiguity, and then the job of this Court is to resolve that ambiguity in light of the legislative intent, using all the resources and tools of statutory construction at our disposal. However, before judges may look to other sources for interpretation, first there must exist an ambiguity within the statute, i.e., two or more reasonable alternative interpretations of the statute. Where the statutory language is free from such ambiguity, courts will neither look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent nor add to or delete words from the statute. Only when faced with ambiguity will courts consider both the literal or usual meaning of the words as well as their meaning in light of the objectives and purposes of the enactment. As our predecessors noted, “We cannot assume authority to read into the Act what the Legislature apparently deliberately left out. Judicial construction should only be resorted to when an ambiguity exists.” Therefore, the strongly preferred norm of statutory interpretation is to effectuate the plain language of the statutory text.’ Price , at 387-88, 835 A.2d at 1226 (citations omitted); Goff v. State, 387 Md. 327, 342 , 875 A.2d 132, 141 (2005); Pete v. State, 384 Md. 47, 57-58 , 862 A.2d 419, 425 (2004).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Conditions for judgment of restitution. — A court may enter a judgment of restitution that orders a defendant or child respondent to make restitution in addition to any other penalty for the commission of a crime or delinquent act, if: (1) as a direct result of the crime or delinquent act, property of the victim was stolen, damaged, destroyed, converted, or unlawfully obtained, or its value substantially decreased; (2) as a direct result of the crime or delinquent act, the victim suffered: (ii) any other direct out-of-pocket loss (c) Effect of judgment of restitution. — (1) A judgment of restitution does not preclude the property owner or the victim who suffered personal physical or mental injury, out-of-pocket loss of earnings, or support from bringing a civil action to recover damages from the restitution obligor.”
3 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.