Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 MDAPP 28 - Diggs v. State

Diggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 2019
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 14132 (§ 210304 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)

Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas · Taylor v. Illinois · United States v. Nobles · Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight

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

  1. “[a] match occurs when CODIS makes an association between two or more DNA profiles and a confirmation process is started by designated laboratory personnel from each affected laboratory. A hit occurs when a confirmed or verified match aids an investigation and one or more of the case(s) involved in the match is unsolved.” NDIS Manual at 52. This distinction appears to be significant only for CODIS disposition and reporting requirements, i.e., CODIS statistics regarding how many criminal cases are aided or solved due to a CODIS assistance. See NDIS Manual at 51 (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[A] body fluid or tissue sample that is: (1) provided by an individual who is convicted of a felony or a violation of § 6-205 or § 6-206 of the Criminal Law Article; (2) provided by an individual who is charged with: (i) a crime of violence or an attempt to commit a crime of violence; or (ii) burglary or an attempt to commit burglary; or (3) submitted to the statewide DNA data base system for testing as part of a criminal investigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.