Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 Md. 286 - Young v. State

Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
10
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably State v. Camacho (1991), Alexis v. State (2014)

30 state decisions — followed in 10 states

801983199020002010decided

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 Butler v. United States · Board of Education v. Nyquist · State v. Jones · State v. Cline · Upton 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he mere appearance of impropriety is not of itself sufficient to warrant disqualification of an entire State’s Attor ney’s office, based upon one member’s prior representation of a defendant presently under prosecution. Where disqualification is sought, the trial court must make inquiry as to whether the defendant’s former counsel participated in the prosecution of the case or divulged any confidential information to other prosecutors. Absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court’s judgment on the matter will not be disturbed on appeal.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]e hold that the proper action to be taken by a trial judge, when he encounters circumstances similar to those in the case at bar which he determines to be so grave as to adversely affect the administration of justice but which in no way suggest the bringing of a prosecution for improper motives (as was the case in Sinclair ) is to supplant the prosecutor, not to bar the prosecution. Of course, a trial judge may determine that the facts presented to him are not sufficiently grave to require even this action. Normally, the evaluation of such circumstances is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge who is upon the scene and able to sense the nuances of that before him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]ransferring responsibility from one office to another, or the appointment of a special prosecutor ... is more cosmetic than substantial. Essentially the question is whether defendant has been in any way prejudiced by virtue of the imparting of knowledge from his former counsel to anyone involved in his prosecution.”
    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.