Foster v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably State v. Williams (1986), State v. Robinson (1993)
108 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gregg v. Georgia · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Furman v. Georgia · Lockett v. Ohio
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A sentencing authority, unconvinced that death is appropriate, may list as a mitigating circumstance whatever factor or factors may have led to this conclusion, irrespective of what the defendant produced or argued. If the sentencing authority perceives anything relating to the defendant or the crime which causes it to believe that death may not be appropriate, it may treat such factor as a mitigating circumstance and decide that it outweighs the aggravating circumstances.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Miller v. State · Conyers v. State““[u]nder these circumstances, a court should be most reluctant to overrule its prior interpretation of that statutory language. The controlling principle was explained in Williams v. State, 292 Md. 201, 210 , 438 A.2d 1301 (1981), as follows: ‘The General Assembly is presumed to be aware of this Court’s interpretation of its enactments and, if such interpretation is not legislatively overturned, to have acquiesced in that interpretation. Harden v. Mass Transit Adm., 277 Md. 399, 406 , 354 A.2d 817 (1976). This presumption is particularly strong whenever, after statutory language has been interpreted by this Court, the Legislature re-enacts the statute without changing in substance the language at issue. Harbor Island Marina v. Calvert Co., 286 Md. 303, 322-323 , 407 A.2d 738 (1979); Director v. Cash, 269 Md. 331, 345 , 305 A.2d 833 (1973) cert. denied sub nom. Vucci v. Boslow, Institution Director, 414 U.S. 1136 , 94 S.Ct. 881 , 38 L.Ed.2d 762 (1974); Macke Co. v. St. Dep’t of Assess. & T., 264 Md. 121, 132-133 , 285 A.2d 593 (1972); Stack v. Marney, 252 Md. 43, 49 , 248 A.2d 880 (1969). Under these circumstances, it is particularly inappropriate to depart from the principle of stare decisis and overrule our prior interpretation of the statute. White v. Prince George’s Co., 282 Md. 641, 657-658 , 387 A.2d 260 (1978). See also Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 , 92 S.Ct. 2099 , 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972).’ Accord: Frank v. Storer, 308 Md. 194, 203 , 517 A.2d 1098 (1986); Farmers & Mercha”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The murder was committed while the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired as a result of mental incapacity, mental disorder, emotional disturbance, or intoxication.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Booth v. State · Evans 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.