Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 Md. App. 182 - Haskins v. State

171 Md. App. 182 - Haskins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Walczak v. State · State v. Parker · Fisher and Utley v. State · Scott v. State · Fidelity-Baltimore National Bank & Trust Co. v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

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

  1. “It is the well-established law of this state that litigants cannot try their cases piecemeal. They cannot prosecute successive appeals in a case that raises the same questions that have been previously decided by this Court in a former appeal of that same case; and, furthermore, they cannot, on the subsequent appeal of the same case raise any question that could have been presented in the previous appeal on the then state of the record, as it existed in the court of original jurisdiction. If this were not so, any party to a suit could institute as many successive appeals as the fiction of his imagination could produce new reasons to assign as to why his side of the case should prevail, and the litigation would never terminate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Under the doctrine, once an appellate court rules upon a question presented on appeal, litigants and lower courts become bound by the ruling, which is considered to be the law of the case____Not only are lower courts bound by the law of the case, but “[decisions rendered by a prior appellate panel will generally govern the second appeal” at the same appellate level as well, unless the previous decision is incorrect because it is out of keeping with controlling principles announced by a higher court and following the decision would result in manifest injustice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[i]t thus appears that the motion did not have a proper basis, and the trial court correctly denied it for that reason.”
    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.