42 Md. App. 167 - Lloyd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “as holding that “extreme” intoxication by itself may indicate a “wanton or reckless disregard” and therefore justify a finding of gross negligence. Under Blackwell , however, it is clear that such a finding is not automatic simply because there is evidence of intoxication. Rather, the issue must be determined by the fact-finder on a case by case basis. This holding cannot be said, as appellant contends, to equate intoxication with gross negligence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nast v. Lockett

2. “may be inferred to have disregarded human life both wantonly and recklessly. When death ensues, inferentially or directly attributable to a breach of a duty by [the driver], derived from his self-induced condition of intoxication, driving while [intoxicated] may be sufficient to raise the cause of death from simple negligence to gross negligence, as a factual determination to be made by the fact finder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nast v. Lockett

3. “It should also be noted that even if the State actually adduced no more evidence than [the defendant's drunkenness to show the gross negligence element of manslaughter by automobile, there would still not be double jeopardy because the “required evidence” necessary to prove the two offenses remains legally distinct even though the "actual evidence” is factually similar.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 198 Md. App. 655 - Moore v. State