101 Md. App. 681 - Barr v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably 108 Md. App. 32 - Claggett v. State (1996), 140 Md. App. 257 - Shipley v. Perlberg (2001)
26 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Montgomery County v. Buckman · Smith v. Higinbothom · Randall Book Corp. v. State · Roberts v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person convicted of a crime and either incarcerated under sentence of death or imprisonment or on parole or probation, including any person confined or on parole or probation as a result of a proceeding before the District Court who claims that the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this State, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or that the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error which would otherwise be available under a writ of habeas corpus, writ of coram nobis, or other common-law or statutory remedy, may institute a proceeding to ... set aside or correct the sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[ 1] the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this State, or [2] that the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or that the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law, or [3] that the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error which would otherwise be available under a writ of habeas corpus, writ or coram nobis, or other common-law or statutory remedy....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flansburg v. State“appeals to the Court of Appeals or the Court of Special Appeals in habeas corpus or coram nobis cases, or from other common-law or statutory remedies which have heretofore been available for challenging the validity of incarceration under sentence of death or imprisonment ... except appeals in such cases pending in the Court of Appeals on June 1,1958....”
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.