9 Md. App. 283 - Pinkney v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A verdict or finding of the jury must be based upon and conform to the evidence; and a verdict wholly unsupported by any evidence whatever should not be allowed to stand. But that a verdict is against the preponderance of evidence is no objection unless there is such a preponderance of proof on the other side as to show that manifest injustice has been done by the verdict, and to warrant the conclusion either that the jury have mistaken or failed to weigh the evidence properly, or to apply legal principles, or to arouse suspicion of corruption, prejudice, or partiality on the part of the jury. Whether a new trial should be granted for insufficiency of evidence rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. It has also been held that a verdict based on incompetent evidence on a material issue must be set aside.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Devers v. State

2. “Abuse of discretion as an exception to the general rule, from the adjudicated cases, has been applied only where the trial court refused even to consider newly discovered evidence as in W.B. & A.R. Co. v. Kimrney, 141 Md. 243 [ 118 A. 648 ], to which reference was made in Givner v. State, 208 Md. 1 [ 115 A.2d 714 ] and stated as an exception in Burley v. State, 239 Md. 342, 344 [ 211 A.2d 714 ]. We stated the exception in Adams v. State, 4 Md.App. 135, 140 [ 241 A.2d 591 ] but did not find it applicable to the facts of that case. In Elder v. State, 7 Md.App. 368, 373 [ 255 A.2d 91 ] and Stallard v. State, 6 Md.App. 560, 563 [ 252 A.2d 267 ] we stated what we deem to be now the general rule — the granting of a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and is not reviewable by this Court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 129 Md. App. 611 - Isley v. State

3. “Rule 759 not only contemplates a motion for a new trial but by § b provides for an arrest of judgment in criminal causes. “Upon motion of a party or on its own motion the court shall arrest judgment only for an error apparent on the face of the record, and which could not have been reached by motion to dismiss or grant appropriate relief before or during the trial.” The basic distinctions between a motion for a new trial and a motion for arrest of judgment are that the former is predicated upon matters extrinsic to the record and is not, as a general rule, appealable, while the latter is predicated upon matters intrinsic to the record and is appealable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 129 Md. App. 611 - Isley v. State