Royal v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State (1968), Walczak v. State (1985)
5 federal appellate · 92 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 Ponzi v. Fessenden · Fisher v. United States · Adams, Nelson, and Timanus v. State · Midgett v. State · Butz 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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * in order to overturn a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury for insufficiency of the evidence it is necessary to show that there was no legally sufficient evidence or inferences drawable therefrom on which the jury could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” 236 Md. 448 -449.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The proper course of procedure is for the witness to wait until a question has been propounded which tends to incriminate him and then decline to answer it. * * * Likewise, if further interrogation is pressed as is often the case, the witness should answer the questions, one by one when propounded, or claim his privilege tO’ decline answering; otherwise, since it cannot be known beforehand which he will do, the court would be unable to rule whether an answer to the particular question might incriminate the witness.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shifflett v. State“"In circumstances where the court is satisfied that the claim has a substantial basis, the mere refusal to testify under a claim of privilege may justify the upholding of the privilege."”
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.