Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 Md. App. 552 - Rice v. State

9 Md. App. 552 - Rice v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
December 2010
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Jones v. State (1985), State v. Stouffer (1998)

37 state decisions

20019701980199020002010decided

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 Midgett v. State · 7 Md. App. 167 - Parker v. State · Hazel v. State · 1 Md. App. 406 - Culver v. State · 21 Ill. 2d 252 - The People v. Qualls

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

  1. ““The true test of merger under the modern doctrine is whether one crime necessarily involves the other, viz., when the facts necessary to prove the lesser offense are essential ingredients in establishing the greater offense, the lesser offense is merged into the greater offense.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the instant case the victim was dragged from her apartment and carried several blocks into the accused's apartment. These actions completed the crime of kidnapping. Thereafter, the crime of rape occurred; the kidnapping was in no way an essential element of that crime because that crime could just as easily have occurred at the victim's apartment. It is not necessary for the State to prove the rape to establish the kidnapping nor to prove the kidnapping to establish the rape. The decision that the kidnapping and rape did not merge is based on only the facts of the instant case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It has been held that evidence of a victim’s immediate complaint to another person about an alleged rape is admissible____ It has also been held the details of the complaint are admissible if the victim has been impeached by other witnesses, or cross-examined as to consent or on the basis that her evidence is false. Since in this case the prosecutrix was cross-examined as to her consent, as well as impeached by other witnesses, the details of the report were admissible.” (Citations omitted). (Emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.