76 Md. App. 738 - Snowden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the facts could somehow support a finding that there was [an assault] in this case unrelated to the robbery ... the short answer is that such an unrelated [assault] was never charged. If a single [assault] count could somehow support either of two separate [assaults] but not both, then we would have vagueness problems and double jeopardy problems that are mind-boggling.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Thompson v. State · 219 Md. App. 234 - Wallace v. State

2. “[i]t cannot be maintained that a necessary minimum amount of a legal element must merge but that any degree or amount above that minimum does not merge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Snowden v. State · Thompson v. State

3. “As Judge Adkins recently pointed out for the Court of Appeals in Nightingale v. State, 312 Md. 699 , 542 A.2d 373 (1988), when dealing with a “multi-[form]” crime ..., a crime that may consist of different combinations of legal elements, we do not even begin the comparing process of deciding whether each contains an element not included in the other until we first select the combination of elements that we are dealing with in the context of that particular case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 133 Md. App. 325 - Dixon v. State