28 Md. App. 408 - Moaney v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2017
14 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 Mackin v. United States · Lutz v. State · Heath v. State · 3 Md. App. 270 - Fabian v. State · Coerper v. Comptroller of the Treasury
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In all cases involving a felony, other than a felony within the jurisdiction of the District Court, in which the accused has not requested a preliminary hearing within ten days after being informed by the court or court commissioner of the availability of such a hearing, or in all cases in which a preliminary hearing has been held and probable cause to hold the accused has been found the state’s attorney may charge by information. (b) (1) In any case where the defendant has been charged with a felony, other than a felony within the jurisdiction of the District Court, the defendant shall be advised by the court or court commissioner, at the time of the initial appearance required by the Maryland District Rules, of his right to request a preliminary hearing. The defendant may make that request at the time of the initial appearance or at any time within ten days thereafter. If the defendant fails to request a preliminary hearing within the ten-day period, it is waived. (2) If the state’s attorney elects to charge the accused by criminal information, the right of the defendant to the preliminary hearing is absolute, if he has requested such a hearing as set out above. (3) If the state’s attorney elects to charge the accused by grand jury indictment, the preliminary hearing is not a matter of right to the defendant but may be afforded in the court’s discretion. A preliminary hearing is not a matter of right in any other case, but may be afforded in any case in the court’s disc”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. State“That in all criminal prosecutions, every man hath a right to be informed of the accusation against him; to have a copy of the Indictment, or charge, in due time (if required) to prepare for his defence; ... and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, without whose unanimous consent he ought not to be found guilty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Clearly such right to charge by indictment as existed at the common law was abrogated. Whether to seek indictment or to charge by information is now at the election of the State’s Attorney with the conditions specified.”). 3 . Although not raised as an issue by the State, we question whether, even if the phrase”
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.