Gross v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
3 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably In Re Tariq A-R-Y (1997), McChan v. State (1966)
3 district · 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Weeks v. United States · Ker v. State of California · United States v. Rabinowitz · Preston v. United States
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The testimony was, we think, properly admitted. The conversation took place very shortly before the killing. It was the State's theory that the appellant had lured the doctor to her hotel for the purpose of killing him, taking whatever money he had upon his person, and obtaining his automobile. It was part of a chain of evidence which tended to establish that appellant was `money conscious,' and that she might resort to robbery to acquire things of value. As stated in Pearson v. State, supra : `The real test of admissibility is the connection of the fact proved with the offense charged, as evidence which has a natural tendency to establish the fact at issue should be admitted.' We think the conversation, when considered with the other evidence adduced, had a `natural tendency' to establish robbery as the motive of the doctor's killing." Id., at 445, 201 A.2d at 817 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vitek v. State“"If believed by the triers of fact, it tended to show that [Gross] wanted money or articles of value, a possible motive for killing the doctor. Moreover, it tended to establish a consciousness on the part of [Gross] of a course of conduct which the State contended was actually pursued by [Gross]; namely, having the doctor register at her hotel and later visiting him at his room. Compare Pearson v. State, 182 Md. 1, 13 , and Westcoat v. State, 231 Md. 361, 367 ." Id. [2]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vitek v. State““* * * It is established law that a search by permission of the person entitled to constitutional protection from unreasonable searches is lawful as one of the exceptions to the general rule that reasonable searches must be made as the result of valid search-warrants. * * *””
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.