Kaylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Frost v. State (1994), State v. Parker (1994)
88 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 Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers · Lustig v. United States · Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · McGee v. International Life Insurance
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[imposition of sentence in a criminal case is a matter within the discretion of the judge.... [TJhere is nothing improper per se about the imposition of consecutive sentences. The restraints on a judge’s power to impose sentence are, generally, that the sentence not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, that the sentencing judge not be motivated by ill-will, prejudice or other improper considerations and, that the sentence fall within statutory limits. [I]t is settled law that consecutive sentences do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment where the length of each sentence is unthin the limits prescribed by statute. Here the appellants do not challenge the sentencing judges’ motivations nor do they contend that the penalties exceed statutory limits. Instead, the appellants directly attack their sentences by asserting that the sentencing judges were powerless to run the sentences consecutively.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Probation is a matter of grace, not entitlement, which permits a wrongdoer to keep his freedom “as long as he conducts himself in a manner consonant with established communal standards and the safety of society.” Scott v. State, 238 Md. 265, 275 , 208 A.2d 575 (1965). See Knight v. State, 7 Md.App. [at] 312, 255 A.2d [at] 444 (1969); Sweeney v. State, 1 Md.App. 233 , 229 A.2d 141 (1967). Probation should not be allowed to develop into a grant of immunity from punishment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘When the sentence in a criminal case is imposed and execution of the imposed sentence is conditionally suspended, as distinguished from the suspension of the imposition of sentence, and the defendant placed on probation, and thereafter the probation is stricken out, the defendant should not be re-sentenced. His original sentence is effective with the probationary provisions stricken out.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moats v. Scott
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.