Court of Appeals of Maryland· 4/13/1992

Richmond v. State

Citations

604 A.2d 483
326 Md. 257
1992 Md. LEXIS 57

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that this Court approaches the analysis of statutory language from a “ ‘commonsensical’ ” perspective
noting that this Court approaches the analysis of statutory language from a \`commonsensical'\ perspective
stating that because the legislative intent in that case was clear, the rule of lenity was inapplicable.
stating that because the legislative intent in that case was clear, the rule of lenity was inapplicable.
“Whether a particular course of conduct constitutes one or more violations of a single statutory offense depends upon the appropriate unit of prosecution[.]” (citations omitted)
in construing a statute, “we give the language of the statute its natural and ordinary signification----”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Karwacki

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.