McMorris v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Batson v. Shiflett (1992), Dempsey v. State (1976)
55 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 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker · Walston v. Sun Cab Co. · Hadder v. State · Veney v. State · Archer 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““conspired each with the other and with others ... to violate the controlled dangerous substances law of the State of Maryland____” [Emphasis added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the State had brought McMorris to trial on this warrant in the District Court, no question relative to limitations properly could have been raised. It elected to obtain an indictment which included charges which could not be tried in the District Court, being beyond its jurisdiction. We do not interpret, as does McMorris, the fact that the State took all charges before the grand jury as such an abandonment of the earlier proceedings in the District Court as to cause the period of limitations to be judged from the date of the indictment. Such a holding would be contrary to the reasoning of our predecessors in Hahn, Kiefer, and Neff The proceeding before the grand jury was but a continuation of the proceeding in the District Court. It was in the interest of the orderly administration of justice that all of the charges growing out of the incidents of January 23,1973, were consolidated into one indictment so that-they might be tried together. Obviously, trial of the conspiracy charge in the District Court and the distribution charge in the circuit court would have involved two appearances for counsel on both sides as well as for the witnesses. McMorris might well have regarded himself as being unduly harassed by the State by such a procedure.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Implicit in the holdings of this Court in Hahn and Neff is the proposition that one looks at the date of issuance of a warrant rather than the date of a subsequent grand jury indictment to determine whether the statute of limitations has been tolled. In Hahn the warrant apparently was issued by a justice of the peace on June 30, 1943. The indictment was filed on July 2,1946. The charge was bastardy. The child was born October 8, 1942. The statute of limitations was two years. ... The plain implication of that decision is that the statute of limitations would have been tolled in that case had there been proper proof of the issuance of the warrant.”
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.