75 Md. App. 621 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The cardinal rule in the construction of statutes is to effectuate the intent of the Legislature. In order to do so, a court should consider the object or purpose to be attained by the statute, and the evils or mischief sought to be remedied, and so construe the statute as to carry out and effectuate, or aid in, the general purposes and policies thereof, and suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. If a statute is susceptible of more than one construction, it should if possible, be given that construction which will effectuate or carry out its purpose or object, and it should not be given a construction that would do more than effect the legislative object or purpose. This is especially true when a court is construing a penal statute, which, according to well established case law, is to be strictly construed. Strict construction, relative to a penal statute, means a construction favorable to the accused, and against the State. In short, the spirit or intention of the statute should control a court’s construction of that statute.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 Md. App. 204 - University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp. v. Erie Insurance Exchange · 97 Md. App. 192 - State v. Polley

2. ““In the case sub judice, appellant did not go to the police to give them a false statement; his purpose was not to initiate police action but, at most, to obstruct or divert an investigation already underway. True, he lied in response to questioning, but although the ... officer’s brief futile attempt to verify appellant’s false responses ... might be construed as an investigation or, at least, ‘other action’ intended to be taken as a result of the lies, it was not the kind of investigation or similar action contemplated by the statute. Furthermore, we do not believe the giving of false information in response to ... questioning by the police,' even though it is likely to hinder or delay an investigation already underway, is the type of false statement, report or complaint that comes within the ‘false alarm’ public mischief the General Assembly intended to criminalize when it enacted § 150.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. State