Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Md. App. 162 - State v. Hance

2 Md. App. 162 - State v. Hance’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
9
states following
June 1987
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently June 1987 · most notably 12 Md. App. 684 - Walker v. State (1971), Kemplen v. Maryland (1970)

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 39 state decisions

310196719701980decided

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 Stovall v. Denno · Gault · Johnson v. State of New Jersey · Linkletter v. Walker · Kent v. United States

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

  1. ““We also conclude that the court below erred in its conclusion that Hance’s statement even though voluntary, was nevertheless inadmissible in evidence because he was only fifteen years of age when he made the statement, and his mother was not permitted to attend his police interrogation. It is well established that the single standard or test by which the court is to measure the admissibility of an extrajudicial statement (or confession) is whether the statement was made freely and voluntarily, and at a time when the person making the statement knew and understood what he was saying, [citations omitted] That Hance was only fifteen years of age when he made the statement does not of itself make the statement involuntary, [citations omitted] In other words, as succinctly stated in Green v. State, 236 Md. 334, 339 , ‘age alone will not render an otherwise voluntary statement involuntaryAnd, if a statement is found to be voluntary, the fact that the mother of the juvenile making the statement was not permitted to attend the interrogation would have no bearing on the admissibility of the voluntary statement.””
    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.