7 Md. App. 256 - Long v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On direct-examination, one of the police officers stated that he knew the deceased by ‘reputation.’ On cross-examination, it developed that the witness knew the deceased by reputation within the police department but did not know his reputation in the community. The trial court sustained an objection by the State to a question by the appellant’s counsel as to what that reputation was. Long contends that this ruling was reversible error. Questions allowed on cross-examination are largely in the discretion of the trial judge, Holt v. State, 3 Md. App. 544 , 240 A. 2d 355 and Barger v. State, 2 Md. App. 565 , 235 A. 2d 751 . We see no abuse of discretion. By his statement that he did not know the general reputation of the deceased, the witness disqualified himself from giving testimony as to that reputation.” Id. at 261-62.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Beasley v. State