55 Md. App. 695 - Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Spence [, supra, ] . . . precludes us from exercising Rule 1085 discretion not to decide the unpreserved issue. The three judge minority dissenting through Chief Judge Murphy, after fully discussing the Covington [, supra,] failure-to-object-result, as well as the [State v.] Hutchinson [, 260 Md. 227 , 271 A.2d 641 (1970)] judicial competence presumption, pointed out in Spence that the majority had fashioned a per se rule. ‘Today, the Court prescribes an inflexible and absolute rule that, notwithstanding the lack of timely objection, where a trial judge in a non-jury case inadvertently renders a premature verdict, which is later stricken, he is thereafter incapable, in any and all circumstances, of fairly considering closing argument.’ 463 A.2d at 818 . When the Chief Judge joined by two distinguished members of that seven judge Court offer that as their interpretation of the holding, we can only assume that had the majority intended a less rigid rule, it would have clearly so stated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 56 Md. App. 613 - Lee v. State

2. “Today, the Court prescribes an inflexible and absolute rule that, notwithstanding the lack of timely objection, where the trial judge in a non-jury case inadvertently renders a premature verdict, which is later stricken, he is thereafter incapable, in any and all circumstances, of fairly considering closing argument. (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 62 Md. App. 425 - Cherry v. State