State Ex Rel. Sonner v. Shearin’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
120 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Attorney General v. Johnson (1978), Pulley v. State (1980)
120 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 Oyler v. Boles · Ex parte United States · United States v. Wiltberger · Morgan v. Devine · Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he holding in Fisher , considered in light of the language used in Liquor Board v. Handelman, supra , and the subsequent holding in Jacob , is authority for an appeal from the imposition of an illegal sentence, since the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction is involved in the sense of whether it exceeded the powers vested in it by prescribing a penalty contrary to law. A lower court which thus exceeds its power must be bridled by a court of last resort. Were it otherwise, mandates of the General Assembly could be defied with impunity and the only protection of the public would be the torturous process of judicial removal which would not have the effect of correcting the specific error.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““§ 12-302. (c) In a criminal case, the State may ¿ppeal [only]: (1) from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment, or inquisition [in a criminal case]; AND (2) FROM A FINAL JUDGMENT IF THE STATE ALLEGES THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE FAILED TO IMPOSE THE SENTENCE SPECIFICALLY MANDATED BY THE CODE.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our conclusion was grounded in three sentencing principles: “[1] in the absence of statutory authority a court does not possess any power, after sentence has been pronounced, to suspend the execution of its judgment so as to relieve an accused, either in whole or in part, from suffering the sentence imposed”[; 2] that, pursuant to Art. Ill, § 60 of the Maryland Constitution, the General Assembly has the power, by “suitable general enactment,” to provide for the suspension of sentences in criminal cases[;] and [3] that any suspension of execution of a sentence by a court, in whole or in part, must be in conformance with an authorizing statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Crawley
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.