Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 6 district · 54 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is patent from our comprehensive discussion in Curtis leading to [the] determination of legislative intent, 284 Md. at 141-150 [ 395 A.2d 464 ], that the waiver concept of Johnson v. Zerbst ... is not applicable to the advisory jury instruction here. $ # sfc sjí Hí % “The short of it is that we found in Curtis ... that ‘it [was] clear that a “procedural default” in certain circumstances, even where a defendant may personally have been without knowledge or understanding of the matter, may result in his being precluded from asserting important rights---- A defendant may forego a broad spectrum of rights which are deemed to fall within the category of tactical decisions by counsel or involve procedural defaults.’ 284 Md. at 147 [ 395 A.2d 464 ]. The right to a correct jury instruction in the circumstances of the instant case falls within the category involving procedural defaults. Thus, the waiver concept of Johnson v. Zerbst ... was not applicable, and, therefore, the provisions of subsection (c) were not applicable.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Rose · Walker v. State

2. ““It is patent from our comprehensive discussion in Curtis leading to [the] determination of legislative intent, 284 Md. at 141-150 [ 395 A.2d 464 ], that the waiver concept of Johnson v. Zerbst and Fay v. Noia is not applicable to the advisory jury instruction here. * * * Hs * * “The jury instruction here falls within the category of those matters which aré capable of being waived other than by the ‘intelligent and knowing’ standard.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Adams · Walker v. State

3. ““(c) When allegation of error deemed to have been waived. — (1) For the purposes of this subtitle, an allegation of error shall be deemed to be waived when a petitioner could have made, but intelligently and knowingly failed to make, such allegation before trial, at trial, on direct appeal (whether or not the petitioner actually took such an appeal), in an application for leave to appeal a conviction based on a guilty plea, in any habeas corpus or coram nobis proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, in a prior petition under this subtitle, or in any other proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, unless the failure to make such allegation shall be excused because of special circumstances. The burden of proving the existence of such special circumstances shall be upon the petitioner. “(2) When an allegation of error could have been made by a petitioner before trial, at trial, on direct appeal (whether or not said petitioner actually took such an appeal), in an application for leave to appeal a conviction based on a guilty plea, in any habeas corpus or coram nobis proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, in a prior petition under this subtitle, or in any other proceeding actually instituted by said petitioner, but was not in fact so made, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that said petitioner intelligently and knowingly failed to make such allegation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. State