85 Md. App. 231 - Fraidin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Harrison v. State (2004), Tapscott v. State (1995)
1 federal appellate · 83 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (§ 125 of the Truth in Lending Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Barker v. Wingo · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council · Haines v. Kerner
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a jury trial, the only way to raise and to preserve for appellate review the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence is to move for a judgment of acquittal on that ground. Under Md. Rule 1-321(0,), a defendant is further required to argue precisely the ways in which the evidence should be found wanting and the particular elements of the crime as to which the evidence is deficient.... “Moving for judgment of acquittal on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence, without argument, does not preserve the issue for appellate review.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The appellant’s brief and especially his reply brief are almost strident in their outrage at the State’s brief for putting a decidedly pro-prosecutorial “spin” or “twist” on evidence which was hotly disputed and subject to arguably diametric interpretations. On the issue of legal sufficiency, however, both the state and the appellant are enjoined to apply just such a “spin.” The slant is required as a matter of law. Of all possible versions of events that would be permitted a fact finder, it is, of course, the most partial one permitted by logic and law which we adopt when assessing the legal sufficiency of the State’s ease. Fact finding impartiality has nothing to do with measuring a prima facie case. (Emphasis supplied). Such a narrative tilt is mandatory when reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`not whether the evidence should have or probably would have persuaded the majority of fact finders but only whether it possibly could have persuaded any rational fact finder.'”
2 later decisions 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.