Mathias v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 state decisions

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Precisely what is meant by an abuse of discretion seems not to have been articulated by this Court. However, some bench marks are to be found. For example, in Washington, B. & A. R. R. v. Kimmey, 141 Md. 243, 250 , 118 A. 648 (1922), relative to the discretion to be exercised in considering a motion for a new trial, Judge Urner said for our predecessors, 'A discretion could not be characterized as sound which wholly disregarded evidence by which its exercise should have been aided.’ In Horton v. Horton, 157 Md. 127, 133 , 145 A. 355 (1929), concerning the discretion of orphans’ couijts in the case of intestacy to grant letters to a child or to the husband or widow, as the case might be, the Court said, '[I]t means that the court shall actually exercise a discretion, and that it shall make its choice after considering the relative merits and fitness of the applicants, and their respective claims to consideration, and not that it may act without regard to such consideration, solely at its pleasure or caprice.’ In Lee v. State, 161 Md. 430 , 157 A. 723 (1931), Chief Judge Bond said for the Court: 'The meaning of discretionary power in a trial court, and the rules governing review of discretionary orders on appeal, have often been stated in vague, loose terms which furnish no exact guidance; but for the purposes of this case it seems to us sufficient to observe only that the judgment and discretion must be exercised in solving the exact problem of the law, upon all the considera”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gonzales v. State · In Re Robert G.

2. ““ ‘done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law, and not humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself.’ ” “Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 438 , 326 A.2d 707 [, 728] (1974), quoting Lord Halsbury, L.C., in Sharp v. Wakefield [1891] A.C. 173, 179. Discretion is abused ‘if exercised in a harsh, unjust, capricious and arbitrary way.’ Mathias [v. State], 284 Md. [22], [ ] 27, 394 A.2d 292 , [295 (1978) ] [ (]quoting Jones v. State, 185 Md. 481, 489 , 45 A.2d 350 [, 353] (1946)[) ].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gonzales v. State · Dashiell v. Meeks

3. “[T]he trial judge should consider, among other things, the reason expressed for making the request, when the request is made in relation to the time of trial, the lapse of time between the election and the requested change, whether there has been a change of counsel, whether the motion is made in good faith and not to obtain delay, whether the granting of the motion would unreasonably delay trial, impede the cause of justice or the orderly administration of the courts, prejudice the State’s case, or unreasonably inconvenience witnesses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 66 Md. App. 757 - Cason v. State