Blizzard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1999 · most notably Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court (1972), Sas v. Maryland (1964)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 39 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 The People v. Redlich · Miller v. Overholser · Eggleston v. State · Beard v. State · 105 Cal. App. 2d 215 - In Re Keddy
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Commitment proceedings under Article 31B (quite properly, we think) throw extensive protections around the person involved therein; and in many respects they are such protections as are afforded to the accused in a criminal case. However, such proceedings do not charge the person involved with any crime. They are not prosecuted on indictment or information, but are based upon a report of a clinical examination. Conviction and sentence for crime are historical facts which are prerequisites to the examination leading up to the commitment proceedings, but there is no issue as to guilt or innocence of any crime or crimes of which the person involved has already been convicted. (Cf. prosecutions under statutes where a second or subsequent offense may be penalized more severely than a first offense, as in Beard v. State, 216 Md. 302 , 140 A.2d 672 , and McCoy v. State, 216 Md. 332 , 140 A.2d 689 ). The sole issue is whether the person before the court is or is not a defective delinquent. “In addition to the authorities from other States cited in the Eggleston case [Eggleston v. State, 209 Md. 504 , 121 A.2d 698 ], we think that the following decisions support or tend to support the view that proceedings under such a statute as our Defective Delinquent Law are civil in nature and should be so regarded for procedural, as well as substantive, purposes: In re Moulton, 96 N.H. 370 , 77 A.2d 26 ; In re Mundy, 97 N.H. 239 , 85 A.2d 371 ; Malone v. Overholzer, Dist.Ct. D.C., 93 F.Supp. 64”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We ... think that it is now quite clear that it is the intention of the General Assembly that such proceedings be regarded as civil in nature as to procedural matters as well [as in substantive matters].”
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.