Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 Md. App. 233 - Gardner v. State

10 Md. App. 233 - Gardner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
February 1995
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 1995 · most notably 12 Md. App. 684 - Walker v. State (1971), Gill v. State (1972)

34 state decisions

240197019801990decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Escobedo v. Illinois · Malloy v. Hogan · Brookhart v. Janis

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

  1. ““It is true that in reaching the preliminary decision as to the voluntariness of the statement the court need not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary; the only duty of the trial court at that point is to decide whether the prima facie proof was such as to establish that the confession was freely and voluntarily made. So the preliminary decision of the court as to the admissibility of the confession, made within the required constitutional framework, will not be disturbed on appeal unless there was a clear abuse of discretion. Barnhart v. State, supra, at 224-226. But in determining whether the court made its decision within the required constitutional framework we must do so within the rule that ‘ [w] hen constitutional rights turn on the resolution of a factual dispute we are duty bound to make an independent examination of the evidence in the record.’ Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1 , note 4 at p. 4.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““a. For Further Proceedings. If it shall appear to this Court that the substantial merits of a case will not be determined by affirming, reversing or modifying the judgment from which the appeal was taken, or that the purposes of justice will be advanced by permitting further proceedings in the cause, either through amendment of the pleadings, introduction of additional evidence, or otherwise, then this Court, instead of entering a final order affirming, reversing or modifying the judgment from which the appeal was taken, may order the case to be remanded to the lower court. Upon remand to the lower court, such further proceedings shall be had by amendment of the pleadings, introduction of additional evidence, making of additional parties, or otherwise, as may be necessary for determining the action upon its merits as if no appeal had been taken and the judgment from which the appeal was taken had not been entered; provided, however, that the order entered by this Court in remanding said case, and the opinion of this Court on which said order is passed, shall be conclusive as to the points finally decided thereby. In such an order remanding a case this Court will express the purpose for so remanding and in its opinion filed with said order will determine all questions which may have been properly presented. b. In Criminal Case. If in an appeal in a criminal action this Court shall reverse the judgment for error in the judgment or in the sentence, this Court will remand the ca”
    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.