Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 48 Md. App. 1 - State v. Levitt

48 Md. App. 1 - State v. Levitt’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2021

10 state decisions

4019811990200020102020decided

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 Benton v. Maryland · Peak v. United States · National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. · Bowers v. State · State v. Devers and Webster

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

  1. “"An oath or affirmation, if made willfully and falsely in any of the following cases, shall be deemed perjury: First, in all cases where false swearing would be perjury at common law; secondly, in all affidavits required by law to be taken; thirdly, in all affidavits to accounts or claims made for the purpose of inducing any court or officer to pass the accounts or claims; fourthly, in all affidavits required to be made to reports and returns made to the General Assembly or any officer of the government; fifthly, in all affidavits or affirmations made pursuant to the Maryland Rules or Maryland District Rules.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because of the requirement that the untrue testimony be wilfully and corruptly false, a conviction of perjury cannot rest upon the mere fact that a witness testified differently on different occasions. If on the first occasion he testified according to his honest belief he did not commit perjury however mistaken he may have been. If he discovered his mistake before he testified on the matter again he was bound to state the facts as he then knew them to be. It would have been perjury for him to have repeated his former statement under oath after learning of its inaccuracy. At common law', it may be added, a conviction of perjury could not be based upon two contradictory sworn statements, even if one was obviously intentionally false, unless it could be established which one this was, — a rule sometimes, and very wisely, changed by statute. Generally, it has been said, a belief as to the falsity of testimony may be inferred by the jury from proof of the falsity itself.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In the statute, perjury encompasses common law perjury as well as other acts which at common law constituted the lesser crime of false s wearing.” Some of the acts proscribed by the statute are not common law perjury. They are, however, indisputably part of”
    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.