Rubin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 district · 108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Ford v. State (1993), Abeokuto v. State (2006)
2 district · 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 Jackson v. Virginia · United States v. Owens · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · United States v. Dion · Dorsey 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e have characterized instances when an appellate court should take cognizance of unobjected to error as compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure the defendant of [a] fair trial. We further made clear that we would intervene in those circumstances only when the error complained of was so material to the rights of the accused as to amount to the kind of prejudice which precluded an impartial trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"No matter how strong a case for conviction the State may present, even when the defense presents no evidence, the court may not direct a verdict for the State. See Maryland Rule 4-324, which, while providing that a defendant may move for judgment of acquittal, Rule 4-324(a), ... and the court may direct the entry of judgment in his or her favor if there is insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, Rule 4-324(b), makes no provision for the making of a motion for judgment by the State. Compare Maryland Rule 2-519, ... the civil counterpart. [ State v. Lyles ], 308 Md. 129, 135 , 517 A.2d 761, 764 (1986). This is so because it is the trier of fact, whether the court or a jury, that must determine if the State has met its burden of proof. To make that determination, the trier of fact is required to find the facts and when, as is usually the case, there are credibility issues, to resolve them. That, in turn, involves weighing the evidence. Appellate courts do not find facts or weigh evidence, `what evidence to believe, what weight to be given it, and what facts flow from that evidence are for the jury ... to determine.' Dykes v. State, 319 Md. 206, 224 , 571 A.2d 1251 , 1260-[6]1 (1990). See Gore v. State, 309 Md. 203, 214 , 522 A.2d 1338, 1341 (1987); Wilson v. State, 261 Md. 551, 566, 276 A.2d 214, 221 (1971); Jacobs v. State, 238 Md. 648, 650 , 210 A.2d 722 , 723-[2]4 (1965). Even when an appellate court assesses the sufficiency of the evidence, it does not weigh it, see Clem”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Bruno v. State · Jensen v. State“‘an appellate court may in its discretion in an exceptional case take cognizance of plain error even though the matter was not raised in the trial court],]’”
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.