Stouffer v. Pearson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. “[i]n determining the meaning of a statute, we consider the statute’s structure, including the title, and how the statute relates to other laws. Witte v. Azarian, 369 Md. 518, 525-26 , 801 A.2d 160, 165 (2002). We look first to the plain meaning of the language chosen by the Legslature. If the plain language of the statute is ambiguous, we analyze the case law, legislative history, and statutory function. Comptroller v. Phillips, 384 Md. 583, 591 , 865 A.2d 590, 594 (2005) (citing Deville v. State, 383 Md. 217, 223 , 858 A.2d 484, 487 (2004)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Georgia Pacific Corp. v. Benjamin

2. “may make [a] sentence concurrent with[,] or consecutive to[,] whatever other sentence then exists, actually being served. [The trial court] may not, however, presume to bind the future. To do so would be, ipso facto, to usurp the sentencing prerogative of some other [trial] judge operating in a near or distant time yet to be.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. State

3. “When a parolee is sentenced for a new crime before revocation of parole, a [trial court] may not treat parole as an existing term of confinement and, as such, a new sentence may not be served consecutive to a parole term because a “sentence may not be consecutive with a term of confinement [that] is not then [in existence].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. State