Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 13 Md. App. 394 - Davis v. State

13 Md. App. 394 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
5
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2009

20 state decisions

1601971198019902000decided

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 United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · Gilbert v. California · Desist v. United States · Bates v. United States

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

  1. ““We therefore conclude that under the principles enunciated in Stovall and followed in Bates, Billinger, and Spencer , the confrontation of the suspect by the victim at the scene of the crime within 30 minutes of the occurrence under the totality of the circumstances in this case was not unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable misidentification. In so holding we are not unmindful of the special emphasis which the appellant places on the circumstance that at the time he was identified, he was the sole occupant of a police cruiser and was identified by the victim looking at him through the vehicle’s window. He contends that the victim’s viewing of him under these circumstances was in itself unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to misidentification. We disagree. While a person who is in police custody and is singly exhibited to an eyewitness to the crime undoubtedly creates a suggestive situation, the fact that his police custody involves being placed in a patrol wagon as the sole occupant thereof rather than simply being in the physical presence of a police officer would seem to make little if any difference so far as the extent of the suggestiveness is concerned. In both situations the suspect is alone in police custody and the police are in effect saying to the witness, ‘We have apprehended this person because we believe he may possibly be the one who committed the crime. Look at him and tell us whether you can identify him as the culprit.’ Furthermore, in Bat”
    1 later decision 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.