Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 Md. 347 - Hammond v. State

Hammond v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 1993
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1993

17 state decisions

601938194019501960197019801990decided

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 McCleary v. State · Biscoe v. State · Toomer v. State · Watts v. State · Cothron 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Reference was made in the argument for the defendant to the recital in his confession of a warning that anything he would say might be ‘used for or against’ him, and certain Texas and early English cases were cited in connection with the suggestion that, because of the defendant’s nervous condition and limited intelligence, the use of the word ‘for’ in addition to ‘against’ in the phrase quoted from the caution given him might have induced him to hope for some resulting favor. The Texas cases were governed by a statute specifying the form of warning to be given before a confession is received, and it is frankly stated in the appellant’s brief that, according to the later English rule, the use of the words ‘for and against’ in such a caution to the accused does not render his confession inadmissible. [Reg.] v. Baldry, 5 Cox, Cr. Cas. 523. The confession in the present case hot only recites the warning in the form quoted, and admits the absence of any threats or promises, but also states that the defendant made the statement of his ‘own free will.’ Upon the evidence in the record we could not justly hold that the rulings as to the admissibility of the confession and the prior statement were erroneous.””
    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.