Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 Md. App. 643 - Williams v. State

4 Md. App. 643 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably 93 Md. App. 422 - Lamb v. State (1992), Dixon v. State (1985)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

100196819701980199020002010decided

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 Reynolds v. States · United States v. Crimmins · 2 Md. App. 513 - Salmon v. State · 3 Md. App. 515 - McLaughlin v. State · Downs 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"We said in Williams v. State, 4 Md. App. 643, 647 [ 244 A.2d 619 (1968)] that any attempt to apply the least force to the person of another constitutes an assault. The attempt is made whenever there is any action or conduct reasonably tending to create the apprehension in another that the person engaged therein is about to apply such force to him. It is sufficient that there is an apparent intention to inflict a battery and an apparent ability to carry out such intention."”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . . in all cases of Presentments or indictments for offences, which are or may be punishable by death, pending in any of the courts of law in this State having jurisdiction thereof upon suggestion in writing under oath of either of the parties to said proceedings that such party cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the same may be pending, the said court shall order and direct the record of proceedings in such suit or action, issue presentment, or indictment, to be transmitted to some other court having jurisdiction in such case for trial, but in all other cases of presentment or indictment, pending in any of the Courts of law in this State having jurisdiction thereof, in addition to the suggestion in writing of either of the parties to such presentment or indictment that such party cannot have a fair and imparital [sic] trial in the court in which the same may be pending, it shall be necessary for the party making such suggestion to make it satisfactorily appear to the Court that such suggestion is true, or that there is reasonable ground for the same. . . .” [9A Md. Code at 149-50]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.