State v. Tull’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2003 · most notably State v. Bricker (1990), In Re Yve S. (2003)
43 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Jenkins v. United States · Brady v. State · State v. Padilla · Madison 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Maryland Rule 759 a provides that a motion for a new trial in criminal cases, as in civil, ‘shall be filed within three days after the reception of a verdict’ (such a motion was duly filed within three days after the verdict in the original trial on June 6, 1962, and denied). We held in Giles v. State, 231 Md. 387 , (in which the sequence of events was almost identical to that here, the second motion for a new trial having been made there some two months after the original judgment and sentence had been affirmed here) that the rule meant what it said and was valid. The apposite language in part was: ‘Maryland Rule 567 a provides that a motion for a new trial “shall be filed within three days after the reception of a verdict” and subsection e of that Rule provides that “if a motion for a new trial be not made, within the time prescribed by section a * * * the Clerk shall enter a final judgment as of course.” Since appellants’ motion was not filed within three days after reception of the verdict, it was properly denied.’ See also Drehoff v. Warden, 231 Md. 654, 656 ; Cook v. State, 225 Md. 603, 608 ; Carr v. State, 218 Md. 318, 320 ; Johnson v. State, 215 Md. 333, 336-337 . “The trial court had no power to grant a new trial under Rule 759 a.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The medical profession fully endorses the appropriate utilization of the skills of psychologists, social workers, and other professional personnel in contributing roles in settings directly supervised by physicians. It further recognizes that these professions are entirely independent and autonomous when medical questions are not involved; but when members of these professions contribute to the diagnosis and treatment of illness, their professional contributions must be coordinated under medical responsibility.”
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.