Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 Md. App. 557 - Wilson v. State

21 Md. App. 557 - Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

2 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2006 · most notably 28 Md. App. 348 - Nooe v. Mayor of Baltimore (1975), 32 Md. App. 613 - Tate and Hall v. State (1976)

2 district · 26 state decisions

2201974198019902000decided

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 Height v. State · 4 Md. App. 236 - State v. Gibson · Maguire v. State · 8 Md. App. 468 - Raimondi v. State · State v. McCray

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

  1. ““The question whether this appeal is properly before us is not answered by Maryland Rule 1085. Under that Rule, and comparable Rule 885 applicable to the Court of Appeals, the question of jurisdiction of the lower court, even though not tried and decided below and neither briefed nor argued, may be raised by the appellate court, sua sponte, in an appeal properly before it, as an exception to the general rule established by Rules 1085 and 885. State v. McCray, 267 Md. 111, 126 . Here the question of jurisdiction was tried and decided below and the issue is not whether it may be considered by this Court in an appeal properly before it, which it could certainly do, but whether this Court may entertain the appeal itself. We are constrained to conclude that the order denying the motion to dismiss was interlocutory and, therefore, the appeal therefrom was premature and must be dismissed.” (Emphasis added). Id. at 571.”
    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.