64 Md. App. 269 - Craddock v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2015
20 state decisions
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 Ross v. State · Henry v. State · Jones v. State · State v. McKay · 31 Md. App. 493 - Hebb v. State
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally, jurors are not required to uniformly accept all of the evidence presented in order to arrive at a unanimous verdict. Some jurors unquestionably reject evidence that others accept in determining guilt or innocence. In short, the law requires unanimity only in the verdict, not in the rationale upon which the verdict is based. In the case sub judice, the statute sets forth various acts that constitute the crime of theft. As long as jurors unanimously agree that theft in some form was committed, nothing more is required.” Id. at 278 , 494 A.2d 971 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A person may not obtain[ 8 ] control over property by willfully or knowingly using deception[ 9 ], if the person: (1) intends to deprive the owner of the property; (2) willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property; or (3) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Manion“of prior arrests that did not result in convictions), cert. denied, 304 Md. 297 , 498 A. 2d 1184 (1985); Nukapigak v. State, 562 P. 2d 697, 701 (Alaska 1977) (ruling that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brooks
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.