Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 Md. App. 281 - Baker v. State

130 Md. App. 281 - Baker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2021

15 state decisions

120200020102020decided

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 Curley v. State · State v. Glenn · 117 Md. App. 357 - Ross v. State · State v. Brown · 53 Md. App. 717 - State v. Glenn

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

  1. “It is the teaching of Curley, Glenn, and Brown that we do not assess the situation by looking backward from the arguably adverse effect, searching for a cause. A mere cause and effect relationship is not enough. We look, rather, from a potential cause forward, asking not whether the feared effect is a predictable possibility but whether it is, as of that moment, already a foregone conclusion—a necessary effect, an unavoidable consequence, a virtual inevitability. We assess the situation as of the day the nol pros is entered.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In the present case, however, a postponement was requested and denied and, as found by the administrative judge, the case could not be set in before the tolling of the 180-day limit. We again stress that in light of the administrative judge’s supervision of the docket, we are unable to ignore his statement that the case could not be heard before expiration of the 180-day time period. In addition, immediately following the judge’s ruling, the State entered a nol pros in the case. We can discern no clearer attempt to circumvent the time period dictated by Art. 27, § 591 and Rule 4-271.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When earlier charges are not prossed and new charges are subsequently filed, the new charges have a life of their own. A new and independent 180-day count begins with respect to them. The not prossing of initial charges, therefore, is not an occasion for skepticism or suspicion. Under the ... approach[ ] chosen by Maryland, it is a legitimate and accepted way of doing prosecutorial business.”
    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.