82 Md. App. 489 - Ezenwa v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Cooley v. State (2005), 87 Md. App. 57 - Howell v. State (1991)
39 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 Blockburger v. United States · Bourjaily v. United States · Braverman v. United States · United States v. Josef Perez · Griffin v. United States
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]ne count in an indictment charging conspiracy to import heroin and another charging conspiracy to distribute heroin are not necessarily two separate conspiracies; they may well be alternative modes of committing the single crime of conspiracy.... [T]he State concedes that there is but one conspiracy with two objects. Accordingly only one ■ penalty should be assessed. That penalty should be determined by reference to the substantive offense having the greater maximum penalty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“conceded that a single agreement underlay both conspiracy counts. It stated, however, that that agreement had two distinct objectives; hence, it maintained that, for that reason, the conspiracy was properly charged in two counts. In the State’s view, both counts had to be submitted to the jury and, in the event that the jury found appellants guilty of both, their remedy lay in their being sentenced on only one.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[e]very order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception under this subtitle, and must terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event in 30 days.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.