Price v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably State v. Arroyo (2009), McNeal v. State (2012)
39 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 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia · MacK v. State · Davis v. Slater · Wright v. State · Shell 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Accordingly, with regard to the instant case, similarly situated cases on direct appeal where the issue was preserved , and verdicts in criminal jury trials rendered after the date of our opinion in this case, inconsistent verdicts shall no longer be allowed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The defendant]^ [counsel] moved to strike the guilty verdict on the count charging possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime ... on the ground that it was inconsistent with the acquittals. More specifically, [the defendant’s] counsel argued that commission of a drug trafficking crime is an “essential element” of the firearms offense ... and that the jury had determined that [the defendant] did not commit a drug trafficking crime. The prosecut[or] agreed that the guilty verdict on the ... firearms count was inconsistent with the acquittals on the drug trafficking counts, but he argued that such inconsistent verdicts were permissible. After receiving legal memoranda from the parties, the trial [court] denied the motion to strike[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Givens v. State“In Maryland, the principles concerning inconsistent verdicts have judicially developed over time as part of this State’s common law. Unlike several other jurisdictions, there are no Maryland statutes or promulgated procedural rules which relate to inconsistent verdicts generally or relate to specific types of inconsistent verdicts. Moreover, the Maryland common law principles governing inconsistent verdicts are themselves confusing and somewhat inconsistent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Travis v. State
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.