Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 308 Md. 129 - State v. Lyles

State v. Lyles’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

131
cited by 131 later decisions
1
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

131 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Trusty v. State (1987), Rubin v. State (1992)

131 state decisions

44019861990200020102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Hill v. United States · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Yi Au Lau v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service · Williams v. Zuckert

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

  1. “(a) Generally. A defendant may move for judgment of acquittal on one or more counts, or on one or more degrees of an offense which by law is divided into degrees, at the close of the evidence offered by the State and, in a jury trial, at the close of all the evidence. The defendant shall state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In our view there is simply no requirement that the court inform the accused of his right to ailocute under the present rule. Rule 4-342 is somewhat different than former Rule 772(c). The former rule, by its terms, required the court to inform an accused that he has the right, personally and through counsel, to make a statement and to present information in mitigation of punishment before sentence was imposed. The rule also required the court to afford the defendant an opportunity to exercise this right. The requirement that the court inform the accused of this right was eliminated in the present version of the rule leaving only the requirement that an opportunity to make a statement be afforded.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Accordingly, no grounds for the motion having been given, the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence has not been preserved.”
    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.