14 Md. App. 454 - Glover v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 1998 · most notably United States v. Han (1996), State v. Allen (1973)
3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
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 Warden, Maryland Penitentiary v. Hayden · Cornish v. State · Hobson v. United States · 8 Md. App. 330 - English v. State · Shipley 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is not the other ingredients of a compound which it is unlawful to possess; it is the heroin, and the statute does not deal in quantities, minimum or otherwise. Code, Art. 27, § 277(f) defines a controlled dangerous substance as ‘any drug, substance or immediate precursor in Schedules I through IV of this subheading.’ ‘Heroin’ is sub-item b.6. of Schedule I, contained in § 279. Thus heroin, without regard to quantity, is, by legislative enactment, a controlled dangerous substance, and its possession is unlawful. The statute needs no construing. Its intent is perfectly clear.” Glover v. State, supra, 287 A.2d 333 at 338 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Allesi““Considering the total atmosphere of the case ... we cannot separate the throwing of the package from the unlawful search. The defendant’s action in throwing the package was not voluntary but was forced by the actions of the officers. That the officers anticipated such a result is evidenced by the fact that they stationed a man in the back yard to receive any person or evidence that might come out. The throwing of the package was directly caused by the actions of the officers.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Narain v. State““In this case, as in Hobson , the back yard was a part of the curtilage surrounding the dwelling. Here, as there, the action of the defendant in disposing of the prohibited materials was not voluntary but was forced by the actions of the officers. And here, as there, but for the seizure and examination of the jettisoned materials there would have been no incriminating evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Narain v. State
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.