Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 MDAPP 109 - Tapscott v. State

Tapscott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
4
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Klauenberg v. State (1999), 691 So. 2d 1273 - State v. Green (1997)

50 state decisions

280199520002010decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Oyler v. Boles · State v. Hicks · State v. Frazier · McMillian 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Maryland Rule 4-204 provides: On motion of a party or on its own initiative, the court at any time before verdict may permit a charging document to be amended except that if the amendment changes the character of the offense charged, the consent of the parties is required. If amendment of a charging document reasonably so requires, the court shall grant the defendant an extension of time or continuance.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Violation constitutes felony; penalty; sentencing. — (1) A parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for the supervision of a child or a household or family member who causes abuse to the child is guilty of a felony....””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the statute mandates registration, not before the law enforcement agency uses the equipment, but ‘within ten days from the date on which the devices came into the possession or control of the agency....’ Therefore, because the equipment was registered within the required time frame, there was no violation of the statute.”
    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.