Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 Md. App. 402 - Nelson v. State

137 Md. App. 402 - Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 137 Md. App. 732 - Gregg Neck Yacht Club, Inc. v. County Commissioners (2001), Perry v. State (2004)

25 state decisions

140200120102020decided

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 28 Ill. 2d 464 - The People v. Damen · Madison v. State · 74 Md. App. 1 - Cassidy v. State · Shoemaker v. State · American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Goldstein

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

  1. “[I]t is subject to limitations such as 1) the requirement that the victim actually testify; 2) the timeliness of the complaint; and 3) the extent to which the references may be restricted to the fact that the complaint was made, the circumstances under which it was made, and the identification of the culprit, rather than recounting the substance of the complaint in full detail.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he window of admissibility of the latter is circumscribed by the continuation of a state of excitement in the body and in the psyche of the victim. There is a glandular component. The window of admissibility of the former, by contrast, is measured by the expectation of what a reasonable victim, considering age and family involvement and other circumstances, would probably do by way of complaining once it became safe and feasible to do so. Reasonable time frames would vary with circumstances. An emotion driven complaint to a close friend or relative, for instance, might well precede a more deliberate report to police or to medical attendants.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The following statements previously made by a witness who testifies at the trial or hearing and who is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement are not excluded by the hearsay rule: (d) A statement that is one of prompt complaint of sexually assaultive behavior to which the declarant was subjected if the statement is consistent with the declarant’s testimony.”
    3 later decisions 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.