Gargliano v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Degren v. State (1999), Jones v. State (1994)
1 federal appellate · 140 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 Parke v. Raley · Rewis v. United States · Ladner v. United States · Deal v. United States · Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An enhanced penalty statute will best deter future criminal conduct when the defendant is made aware that the subsequent commission of criminal acts will be more harshly punished. Where, as here, the defendant has not been convicted of an earlier offense, and thereby warned about the enhanced consequences of future criminal conduct, prior to the commission of the principal offense, the imposition of an enhanced penalty is not warranted. We therefore hold that § 286(c) is applicable only if the defendant has been convicted of an earlier offense prior to the commission of the principal offense. ]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) A person who is convicted under subsection (b)(1) ... of this section ... shall be sentenced to imprisonment for the term allowed by law, but, in any event, not less than 25 years ... if the person previously: (i) Has served at least 1 term of confinement of at least 180 days in a correctional institution as a result of a conviction of a previous violation of this section or § 286A of this article; and (ii) Has been convicted twice, where the convictions do not arise from a single incident.... (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Stewart · Melgar v. State“(a) Prohibited conduct.—Except as authorized by this subheading, it is unlawful for any person: (1) To ... possess a controlled dangerous substance in sufficient quantity to reasonably indicate under all circumstances an intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled dangerous substance; (b) Penalty.—Any person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section with respect to: (1) A substance classified in Schedules I or II which is a narcotic drug is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 20 years, 'or a fine of not more than $25,000, or both. (c) Sentencing.—(1) A person who is convicted under subsection (b)(1) ... of this section shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 10 years and subject to a fíne not exceeding $100,000 if the person previously has been convicted: (i) Under subsection (b)(1) ... of this section;.... (2) The prison sentence of a person sentenced under subsection (b)(1) ... of this section ..., as a second offend er may not be suspended to less than 10 years, and the person may be paroled during that period only in accordance with § 4-305 of the Correctional Services Article.”
2 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.