Madison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 120 state decisions

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

1. ““At common law the ancient writ of error coram nobis has been available to correct errors of fact. It has been allowed, without limitation of time, for facts affecting the validity and regularity of the judgment, and has been used in both civil and criminal cases. While the occasions for its use have been infrequent, no one has doubted its availability. It is still available in Maryland in both civil and criminal cases. In England the writ of coram nobis was issued out of Chancery like other writs, but the procedure by motion in the case is now the accepted American practice. The present case was not brought on a writ of coram nobis. However, since the courts now act on motion to rectify such mistakes of fact as were originally reviewable on coram nobis, it is appropriate to say that coram nobis will not lie (1) to correct an issue of fact which has been adjudicated, even though wrongly determined, or (2) to determine whether any witnesses testified falsely at the trial, or (3) to present newly discovered evidence, or (4) to strike out a conviction on the ground that the prosecuting witness was mistaken in his identification of the accused as the person who committed the crime. The purpose of the writ is to bring before the court facts which were not brought into issue at the trial of the case, and which were material to the validity and regularity of the proceedings, and which, if known by the court, would have prevented the judgment. It is manifest that if the writ were ava”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holmes v. State · 176 Md. App. 600 - Abrams v. State

2. “"[i]n Maryland all judgments are under the control of the court during the term in which they are entered, and during that time the court has inherent power to strike out or modify judgments in both civil and criminal cases." Madison v. State, 205 Md. 425, 431 , 109 A.2d 96, 99 (1954). In the absence of a statute or rule either modifying or rescinding this power, such authority survives.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cardinell v. State · 183 Md. App. 480 - State v. Karmand

3. “We held in 1950 in Czaplinski v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 196 Md. 654, 663 , 75 A.2d 766, 770 , that it is beyond the power of a trial court to change a judgment in a criminal case after the term at which it was rendered. In 1952 we held in Wilson v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 200 Md. 652 , 89 A.2d 227 , that a trial court has no power to strike out or reduce a sentence imposed upon a convicted defendant after it has become enrolled. The law of these cases has been modified by the rule of this Court which provides that in all criminal cases, except cases involving bastardy, desertion, and non-support, the court may reduce a sentence within 90 days after the sentence is imposed, or within 90 days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of appeal. General Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 4, rule 10(c).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Robinson