Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 302 Md. 422 - Walczak v. State

Walczak v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

200
cited by 200 later decisions
2
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

200 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Randall Book Corp. v. State (1989), Chaney v. State (2007)

200 state decisions

57019851990200020102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3651

Relies on Corallo v. United States · Hildebrand v. Social Security Administration · Boesche v. Udall · 15 Cal. 3d 481 - People v. Lent · 17 Cal. 3d 614 - People v. Richards

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

  1. “[W]hen the trial court has allegedly imposed a sentence not permitted by law, the issue should ordinarily be reviewed on direct appeal even if no objection was made in the trial court. Such review and correction of an illegal sentence is especially appropriate in light of the fact that Rule 4-345(a), formerly Rule 774 a, provides that “[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.” Thus, a defendant who fails to object to the imposition of an illegal sentence does not waive forever his right to challenge that sentence. Moreover, because the defendant would be entitled to post conviction relief if a sentence is clearly illegal although not objected to at trial, interests of expedition and judicial economy support review of the sentence on direct appeal.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) A court may enter a judgment of restitution that orders a defendant or child respondent to make restitution in addition to any other penalty for the commission of a crime or delinquent act, if: (1) as a direct result of the crime or delinquent act, property of the victim was stolen, damaged, destroyed, converted, or unlawfully obtained, or its value substantially decreased....”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Clearly ... restitution is punishment for the crime of which the defendant has been convicted. Restitution depends on the existence of that crime, and the statute authorizes the court to order restitution only where that court is otherwise authorized to impose punishment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.