Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 Md. 77 - Clark v. State

Clark v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
6
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Conyers v. State (1997), Ayers v. State (1994)

2 federal appellate · 72 state decisions

3101993200020102020decided

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 Ross v. State · United States v. Winston · Guesfeird v. State · Rainville v. State · Kosmas 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “authorizes admitting evidence which otherwise would have been irrelevant in order to respond to ... admissible evidence which generates an issue.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “'opening the door' is simply a way of saying: 'My opponent has injected an issue into the case, and I ought to be able to introduce evidence on that issue.' " Clark v. State , 332 Md. 77 , 85, 629 A.2d 1239 , 1243 (1993). It is a method by which we allow parties to "meet fire with fire,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he “opening the door” rule has its limitations. For example, it does not allow injecting collateral issues into a case or introducing extrinsic evidence on collateral issues. Such evidence is also subject to exclusion where a court finds that the probative value of the otherwise inadmissible responsive evidence “is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.””
    4 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.