Minor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Jones v. State (1994), Randall Book Corp. v. State (1989)
31 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 Solem v. Helm · Rummel v. Estelle · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · Hutto v. Davis · American Petrofina Co. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union Local No. 4-23
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted, by the Courts of Law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ayers v. State · State v. Stewart“"The majority opinion does not separately discuss the defendant’s reliance upon Articles 16 and 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Thus, the majority apparently views the Maryland constitutional provisions as being in pari materia with the Eighth Amendment. This approach, with which I agree, seems to be reflected in many of our prior cases. See, e.g., Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 720-729 , 415 A.2d 830 (1980); Delnegro v. State, 198 Md. 80, 88-89 , 81 A.2d 241 (1951); Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 602, 611-12 , 71 A. 1058 (1909); Foote v. State, 59 Md. 264, 268 (1883). See also Mitchell v. State, 82 Md. 527, 532-534 , 34 A. 246 (1896) [(Article 25 derived from English Bill of Rights, which was also source of Eighth Amendment) ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Thomas v. State“We discussed the unique qualities of the Maryland habitual offender statute in Montone v. State, 308 Md. 599 , 521 A.2d 720 (1987). Although in that case we were commenting on the operation of § 643B(b), our remarks are equally applicable to § 643B (c). We said: The Maryland statute requires more than merely “previous” convictions; it requires separate convictions. Moreover, the statute’s scope is narrowed by the fact that it requires not only that an individual shall have received separate convictions, but that he shall have been sentenced to, and shall have actually served, [a term] of confinement under the jurisdiction of the correctional system.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McGlone 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.