88 Md. App. 393 - Glover v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Nor was appellant’s hindering of the officer justified even if the underlying arrest was illegal. The crux of appellant’s claim to the contrary is the argument that the officer, if making an illegal arrest, was not performing a duty. There is no Maryland law directly on point. It is clear, however, that a police “duty” sufficient to trigger a hindering charge need not be an arrest. Moreover, in Sibiga v. State, 65 Md.App. 69, 76 , 499 A.2d 484 (1985)[,] we upheld a hindering conviction even though the defendant claimed that he had not hindered the police in the performance of any lawful duty. Sibiga obstructed and hindered police officers who, acting pursuant to a writ of possession, sought to evict him from his home. Because the effect of the writ had been stayed by the circuit court, Sibiga claimed it gave the officers “no legal right to move him from his house” and thus his resistance could not be hindering. Although we did not elaborate on the extent of police officers’ “duty[J” we concluded that there was “ample evidence” that the police were “engaged in the performance of a duty” in executing this writ.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Md. App. 610 - Lamb v. State

2. “[Ajppellant assumes that the scope of the agents’ official duties is co-extensive with their power to arrest. But this is not so.... “Engaged in performance of official duties” is simply acting within the scope of what the agent is employed to do. The test is whether the agent is acting within that compass ,pr is engaging in a personal frolic of his [or her] own. It cannot be said that an agent who had made an arrest loses his [or her] official capacity if the arrest is subsequently adjudged to be unlawful.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Md. App. 610 - Lamb v. State

3. “where the use of force is authorized, the force used may only be that which is reasonably demanded by the situation. An intervenor, acting under a right to assist, is judged “on his own conduct, based upon his own observation of the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to him.” Thus, appellant could not legally use more force than was reasonably demanded by the circumstances he faced.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Md. App. 610 - Lamb v. State