101 Md. App. 331 - Solomon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Conyers v. State (1997), 128 Md. App. 79 - Fisher v. State (1999)
45 state decisions
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 Pointer v. United States · Drew v. United States · McElroy v. United States · Tichnell v. State · Ross v. State
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. MOTIVE 2. INTENT 3. Absence of MISTAKE or accident 4. IDENTITY 5. COMMON scheme or plan”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“10. Opportunity 11. Preparation 12. Plan 13. Knowledge”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The second procedural step calls for preliminary fact finding by the trial judge. The allusion to some other crime allegedly committed by the defendant may be no more than a bald and unsubstantiated assertion by the witness. The alleged crime may never have led to an arrest, let alone a conviction. Indeed, it may never have been investigated or even discovered. It is for that reason that the trial judge needs to be persuaded, by the clear and convincing standard, that the alleged crime did, indeed, take place before he allows evidence of it to come into evidence. Judge Adkins explained: If one or more of the exceptions applies, the next step is to decide whether the accused’s involvement in the other crimes is established by clear and convincing evidence. We will review this decision to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial judge’s finding, (citations omitted). 314 Md. at 635 , 552 A.2d 896 . Because the weight to be given the preliminary evidence as to the existence of the other crime is of necessity for the trial judge in his ancillary fact-finding capacity, the reviewing court, under the clearly erroneous standard, is limited to determining the existence of a prima facie case in that regard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.