Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 Md. App. 307 - Squire v. State

32 Md. App. 307 - Squire v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Squire v. State (1977), 90 Md. App. 254 - Austin v. State (1992)

29 state decisions

19019761980199020002010decided

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 · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Estelle v. Williams · 28 Md. App. 640 - Evans v. State · State v. Evans

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

  1. “[EJven if an error in jury instructions is plain, its consideration on appeal is not a matter of right; the rule is couched in permissive terms and necessarily leaves its exercise to the discretion of the appellate court, (citation omitted).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[W]e note that the decision to treat as plain error the faulty instruction given in Evans stands in contrast with that here involved in that the error in Evans occurred before the Supreme Court decided Mullaney , whereas the error in the present case occurred subsequent to that decision. In its affirmance of the judgment in Evans v. State, the Court of Appeals considered it appropriate to recognize, as ‘plain error’ under Rule 756 g, an error in jury instructions committed in a case tried prior to the Mullaney decision, since in view of Mullaney’s retroactive application, the error was one specifically open to collateral attack under the provisions of the Post Conviction Procedure Act, Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol.), Article 27, § 645A (d).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we decline to invoke the provisions of the rule in this case.”
    1 later decision 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.