Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 290 Md. 229 - Dortch v. State

Dortch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
3
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably State v. Bell (1998), Abeokuto v. State (2006)

42 state decisions

1801981199020002010decided

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 Boykin v. Alabama · McCarthy v. United States · Countess v. State · State v. Priet · Davis v. State

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

  1. “`guilt must be found to be beyond a reasonable doubt.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The record in the Dortch case[ 2 ] indicates that the defendant made a written election witnessed by counsel, stating that his election for a court rather than a jury trial was ‘knowingly and voluntarily’ made. The voluntary character of the election was fortified by the colloquy between the trial judge and Dortch at the commencement of the trial. We think the trial judge fairly determined that Dortch, having been fully advised with respect to the nature of a jury trial, voluntarily relinquished that right when he elected a court trial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In determining whether the defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial, the questioner need not recite any fixed incantation. Whether there is an intelligent, competent waiver must depend on the unique facts and circumstances of each case. However, the court must be concerned that the waiver is not a product of duress or coercion. Furthermore, a defendant must have some knowledge of the jury trial right before he is allowed to waive it.” 12 [Citations omitted.]”
    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.