Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 29 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the real and actual intent of the Legislature. A court's primary goal in interpreting statutory language is to discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by the statutory provision under scrutiny. To ascertain the intent of the General Assembly, we begin with the normal, plain meaning of the statute. If the language of the statute is unambiguous and clearly consistent with the statute's apparent purpose, our inquiry as to the legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written without resort to other rules of construction. We neither add nor delete language so as to reflect an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, and we do not construe a statute with "forced or subtle interpretations" that limit or extend its application. * * * In every case, the statute must be given a reasonable interpretation, not one that is absurd, illogical or incompatible with common sense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 332 - Scriber v. State

2. “But that does not mean that because a particular fact pattern has not yet occurred the statute is so limited. The General Assembly's concern for the welfare of children, and the myriad ways in which abusers can sexually exploit minors, militates against unduly narrowing the scope of a statute that is reasonably worded so as to reach a wide swath of behaviors, including those where a minor is sexually exploited but not physically harmed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 332 - Scriber v. State

3. “the State need only prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the parent or person having temporary or permanent custody of a child took advantage of or unjustly or improperly used the child for his or her own benefit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 332 - Scriber v. State