121 Md. App. 168 - Ruby v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “• The trial court’s grant of a writ of error coram nobis was inappropriate because the error [petitioner] relies upon to validate the issuance of the writ does not relate to any fact not known at either the hearing on his motion for new trial or at [petitioner's original trial that would have affected the entry of judgment. The indirect and ultimate purpose of [petitioner]^ efforts is to place “newly discovered evidence” before the court and to correct an adjudicated issue of “fact” that [petitioner] believes has been wrongly decided. A writ of error coram nobis does not he for such purposes. Hence, we are without jurisdiction to entertain any arguments [petitioner] might have raised by the grace of that writ.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 124 Md. App. 226 - Skok v. State · Ruby v. State

2. “Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the motion for new trial?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ruby v. State