31 Md. App. 493 - Hebb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston (1984), 59 Md. App. 350 - Bangs v. Bangs (1984)
70 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Harris v. New York · Lego v. Twomey · Schowgurow v. State · Dempsey 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Judges are presumed to know the law. Samson v. State, 27 Md. App. 326, 334 , 341 A. 2d 817, 823 (1975). See Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 126 , 213 A. 2d 475, 479 (1965). Absent an indication to the contrary, we must assume that judges apply the law correctly to the case before them. Therefore, inasmuch as the trial judge in the instant case did not articulate his reasons for admitting the appellant’s statement into evidence, we deduce that he applied the preponderance of evidence test set out by Lego and the third Mulligan. [ 18 Md. App. 588 , 308 A. 2d 418 (1973)].””
2 later decisions 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.