Bryant v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 144 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Tichnell v. State (1980), State v. Cofield (1992)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 144 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 Holt v. United States · Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. · Durham v. United States · Delaney v. United States · Corens 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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where intent is material, the conduct of the accused is relevant to show that intent. Hence, evidence of collateral offenses is admissible, on the trial of the main charge, to prove the intent. To be admissible as relevant, such offenses need not be exactly concurrent. If they are committed within such time, or show such relation to the main charge, as to make connection obvious, such offenses are admissible to show intent.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`"In the exercise of that discretion, the trial judge should adapt the questions to the needs of each case in the effort to secure an impartial jury. Any circumstances that may reasonably be regarded as rendering a person unfitted for jury service may be made the subject of questions and a challenge for cause. Accordingly an examination of a juror on his voir dire is proper as long as it is conducted within the right to discover the juror's state of mind in respect to the matter in hand or any collateral matter reasonably liable to unduly influence him. Corens v. State, 185 Md. 561, 564 , 45 A.2d 340 ; Grossfeld v. Braverman, 203 Md. 498 , 101 A.2d 824 .'"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * The degree of severity of a trial judge’s rebukes of an attorney, when the occasions require them, is left to the discretion of the judge as long as they do not prevent a fair and impartial trial. Unless there is some clear showing that the judge’s statements influenced the jury against the defendant, the mere fact that the trial was conducted in an impatient and brusque way does not justify a reversal of the judgment.* * *””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson v. State · Elmer 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.