Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 342 Md. 38 - Armstead v. State

Armstead v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

137
cited by 137 later decisions
17
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 127 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 137 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Merzbacher v. State (1997), State v. Copeland (1996)

2 federal appellate · 127 state decisions — followed in 17 states

6301996200020102020decided

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 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Morrissey v. Brewer · Goldberg v. Kelly · Boddie v. Connecticut · United States v. Lovasco

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

  1. “If the language alone does not provide sufficient information on the Legislature’s intent, then courts will look to other sources to discern the Legislature’s purpose.... Because the meanings of even common words may be context-dependent, ... we often proceed to consider other external manifestations of legislative intent, such as the amendment history of the statute, its relationship to prior and subsequent law, and its structure.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In the coin toss example, this means that the outcome of the first coin toss does not affect the outcome of the second coin toss, which is a valid assumption. By comparison, assume we wish to calculate the probability of having both a checking account and a loan from a particular bank. This is an example of non-independent or linked events. We can not calculate the probability of having both a loan and a checking account at the same bank by multiplying together the individual probabilities under the product rule because a person is more likely to obtain a loan from the bank where he maintains a checking account. To illustrate nonindependence as it applies to human characteristics (although not genetic characteristics), assume we wish to determine the probability a man will have both a beard and a moustache. Also assume that the probability of having a beard is %, and the probability of having a moustache is V It would be incorrect to infer that the probability of having both a beard and a moustache, applying the product rule, is jáoo, because it is likely that these are non-independent events; men who have beards are probably more likely than others to also have moustaches.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““[Sjuppose that a new species of flower is discovered. When it is discovered, a white-flowered variety and a red-flowered variety are observed. It would be incorrect to calculate the probability of a new plant having white flowers based on a normal distribution, because this would depend on whether flower colors varied along a continuum from white to pink to red, or whether there were only discrete possibilities for the flower color, i.e., white or red. Under this scenario, the correct choice of probability calculations would depend on the underlying genetics of the plant.””
    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.