Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 MDAPP 530 - Torbit v. State

Torbit v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915

Relies on Jones v. Morris · Stuart v. Board of Supervisors of Elections · Hardy v. Hardy · 30 Md. App. 214 - Hall v. Hall · 36 Md. App. 177 - Klein v. Klein

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

  1. “In light of the specific criteria set forth in [the statute], we believe that the circuit court should state its findings in writing so that, on appeal, we can determine whether the court’s decision amounts to an abuse of discretion.... [Therefore, ... [a] court’s failure to explain its reasons for denying [a] motion [would be], itself, ... an abuse of discretion. The requirement that a court must state its reasons for denying an application for waiver of filing fees and costs should not be an onerous one. A lengthy statement is not necessary; a brief, one line notation, such as “affidavit does not show that applicant is indigent,” or “complaint is patently meritless [or frivolous]” will normally suffice.”
    2 later decisions 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.