62 Md. App. 190 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is clear that the burden of proof is allocated to the defendant to show his standing. The State has no obligation to show nonstanding.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ruffin v. State · State v. Cheek

2. “A vast chasm of time and technological advance separates the world of manual copying, in which the rule was born, from the world of highly sophisticated, mechanical reproduction today. McCormick, § 236, “Mechanical Reproductions,” at 567, described that earlier world, out of which the rule of preference grew: “The treatment of copies under the rule requiring the production of the original document can only properly be understood when viewed in light of the technological history of copying itself. In its earliest stages, the rule appears to have developed against a background of copying performed by individuals of the Bob Cratchit sort, transcribing manually not always under the best of conditions. Errors under such circumstances were routinely to be expected.” Professor Irving Younger vividly describes the human frailty of a copier, as a Bob Cratchit, fingers numbed by the cold in the counting house and fraught with anxiety over the health of Tiny Tim, might distractedly misplace a decimal point, invert a pair of digits or drop a line. A Xerox machine, by way of contrast, does not worry about Tiny Tim and, does not, therefore, misplace decimal points, invert digits, drop lines, or suffer any of the other mental lapses that flesh is heir to.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Starr · State v. Brown

3. “The appellant would like to take advantage of the fact that only a copy instead of the original document was offered to the court, but he fails utterly to relate his objections to any possible undergirding purpose that this evidentiary rule of preference was designed to serve. There was in this case no issue raised as to the contents of the search warrant itself.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown · 136 Md. App. 458 - Herbert v. State