24 Md. App. 246 - Ross v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Ross v. State (1976), State v. Hutchinson (1980)
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 Allen v. United States · 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · 16 Md. App. 83 - Bailey v. State · 17 Md. App. 399 - Hignut v. State · 15 Md. App. 503 - Colburn v. Colburn
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.
“A poll of the jury serves the same purpose as that of hearkening the verdict. `[I]t has never been the law in Maryland that hearkening is the prerequisite to an acceptable verdict where the jury has been polled. In other words it has not been doubted that polling is a fully commensurable substitute for hearkening.' It is in the absence of a demand for a poll that a hearkening is required for the proper rendition of a verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“hearkening of a verdict is the traditional formality [for] announcing the recording of the verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Santiago · Smith v. State““Q. And how long had you known [appellant] prior to this night in question? “A. Since 1958, around 1958. “Q. How would you characterize your acquaintanceship with [appellant]? “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. “THE COURT: Sustained “Q. [THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: How would you say you knew him then? “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection “THE COURT: Sustained. “Q. [THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Would you tell us what, if any, contact you had, had with [appellant] from 1958 up to the date in question, February 6, 1973? “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. “THE COURT: On what grounds? “[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think it is leading, number one, Your Honor; and, I don’t see that it has any bearing at all on the events of February 6, 1973. “THE COURT: They are superior [conspiracy] charges in the Indictment, and events prior to that may be relevant, and the form of the question, I believe, is not leading. You can answer the question. “A. We use [sic] to work together selling narcotics.” (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ross v. State
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.