Tull v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

cited by 32 later decisions

states following

May 2015

most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably State v. Hutchinson (1980), Warfield v. State (1989)

32 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 Braunfeld v. Gibbons · Nelson v. County of Los Angeles · National Theatres Corp. v. Bertha Building Corp. · Leon v. Klinger · Chisley 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

““It is quite clear this Court will not review in the absence of a motion below. Humphreys v. State, 227 Md. 115, 123 [ 175 A.2d 777 ]; Woodell v. State, 223 Md. 89, 91 [ 162 A.2d 468 ]. We are aware of no case supporting the appellant’s contention as to due process. In a number of recent decisions of this Court applying the principle, the Supreme Court has denied certiorari. See Kain v. State, 222 Md. 511 [ 161 A.2d 454 ], cert. den. 364 U.S. 874 [ 81 S.Ct. 118 , 5 L.Ed.2d 96 ]; Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294 [ 157 A.2d 437 ], cert. den. 363 U.S. 849 [ 80 S.Ct. 1628 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1732 ]; Reddick v. State, 219 Md. 95 [ 148 A.2d 384 ], cert. den. 360 U.S. 930 [ 79 S.Ct. 1448 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1544 ]; Jackson v. State, 214 Md. 454 [ 135 A.2d 638 ], cert. den. 356 U.S. 940 [ 78 S.Ct. 784 , 2 L.Ed.2d 816 ]. Moreover, Rule 755 of the Maryland Rules is similar to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It has been held in at least two Federal cases that failure to interpose the motion is fatal to review. Corbin v. United States, 253 F.2d 646 (C.A. 10th); Picciurro v. United States, 250 F.2d 585 (C.A.8th). We discussed the point of due process in Woodell v. State, supra, although there the attack was directed at the alleged incompetence of court appointed counsel in failing to make the motion. See also Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 382 [ 183 A.2d 359 ] et seq.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Ennis v. State
“Here it is argued that this was a "plain error material to the rights" of the accused under Rule 756 g, in order to avoid the failure to object to the court's instructions, or to request any or further instructions, as required by Rule 885. On this point we adhere to the views expressed in Giles v. State, supra and the cases there cited. See also Canter v. State, 220 Md. 615 , and Woodell v. State, [ 223 Md. 89 , 162 A.2d 468 (1960)]. [ Id. at 156 .]);”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. State v. Hutchinson

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.