Logan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
4 district · 172 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably 40 Cal. 3d 512 - People v. Brown (1985), Johnson v. State (1982)
4 district · 172 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Johnson v. Zerbst · Barker v. Wingo
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In considering what is proper punishment, it is now well-settled in this State that a judge is not limited to reviewing past conduct whose occurrence has been judicially established, but may view ‘reliable evidence of conduct which may be opprobrious although not criminal, as well as details and circumstances of criminal conduct for which the person has not been tried.’ Henry v. State, 273 Md. 131, 147-48 , 328 A.2d 293, 303 (1974).” 289 Md. at 481 , 425 A.2d at 643 .”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[i]n Maryland, a sentencing judge is vested with virtually boundless discretion. He may impose any sentence, which is not cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by Article 16 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and which is within the statutorily imposed limitations (if any there be) determined to be deserved for or necessitated by the proven criminal conduct in question.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[in] exercising the discretion vested in [the sentencing judge], the procedural policy of the State encourages him to consider information concerning the convicted person’s reputation, past offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, social background and any other matters that a judge ought to have before him in determining the sentence that should be imposed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. State · Gargliano v. State
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.