State v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Williams v. State (1985), Jones v. State (1985)
28 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 Donovan v. Dewey · Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker · Hadder v. State · Veney v. State · Ayre 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A primary purpose of a charging document is to fulfill the constitutional requirement contained in Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights that each person charged with a crime must be informed of the accusation against him. More particularly, the purposes served by the consti tutional requirement include (1) putting the accused on notice of what he is called upon to defend by characterizing and describing the crime and conduct; (2) protecting the accused from a future prosecution for the same ojfensef]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) putting the accused on notice of what he is called upon to defend by characterizing and describing the crime and conduct; (2) protecting the accused from a future prosecution for the same offense; (3) enabling the accused to prepare for his trial; (4) providing a basis for the court to consider the legal sufficiency of the charging document; and (5) informing the court of the specific crime charged so that, if required, sentence may be pronounced in accordance with the right of the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fulfill[s] the constitutional requirement contained in Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights that each person charged with a crime must be informed of the accusation against him.[ 10 ] ... Otherwise stated in the leading case of State v. Lassotovitch, 162 Md. 147, 156 , 159 A. 362 (1932), every charge or accusation must include at least two elements, ie.: First, the characterization of the crime; and, second, such description of the particular act alleged to have been committed by the accused as will enable him to properly defend against the accusation.... [T]he second requires such definite and specific allegations as reasonably to put the accused on notice of the particular act charged, to enable him to prepare a defense and plead the judgment in any subsequent attempted prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnson 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.