86 Md. App. 74 - Lancaster v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably State v. Lancaster (1993), Williams v. State (1996)
36 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 Davis v. Alaska · Luce v. United States · Newton v. State · Hillard v. State · Simms v. State
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The State strenuously objects to the merger of § 464C and § 554, relying on Schochet v. State, 320 Md. 714 , 580 A.2d 176 (1990), for the proposition that in addition to proving that an unnatural or perverted practice occurred, the State must also prove that it was either nonconsensual, commercial, homosexual, involved a juvenile or not performed in private. Schochet involved a sex act between two heterosexual, consenting adults in the privacy of one’s home. Contrary to the State’s premise, Schochet does not require the State to prove additional facts. What Schochet holds is that the statute was not intended to apply to, and therefore does not criminalize, consensual heterosexual conduct in private between competent adults. The holding in Schochet is inapposite to any issue in the case sub judice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lancaster““the trial court’s instructions, as well as the State’s closing argument, made it clear that fellatio was the sexual act alleged under both the fourth degree sexual offense charge and the [§ 554] charge ..., under the facts of this case appellant’s conviction and sentence under § 554 ... merged into his conviction and sentence for the greater offense, fourth degree sexual offense under § 464C.” 86 Md.App. at 84 , 585 A.2d at 279 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lancaster““The law is perfectly clear that it is ‘impermissible to attack the credibility of a witness by asking him about his past record of juvenile offenses, directly, or indirectly.’ Indeed, any inquiry, ‘whether by record or by cross-exami nation, of determinations of prior juvenile delinquency is impermissible in ar.y adjudicatory hearing.’ ” (Citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. State
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.