Perry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Conyers v. State (1999), Ball v. State (1997)
2 federal appellate · 67 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Bibby v. United States · Krulewitch v. United States · Daniel v. Security Pacific National Bank
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘We have addressed these claims in prior cases and have rejected each of them. See Grandison v. State, 341 Md. 175, 231 , 670 A.2d 398, 425 (stating that a similar claim, ‘though made time and time again over the years, has been consistently rejected by this Court’), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 581 , 136 L.Ed.2d 512 (1996); Whittlesey v. State, 340 Md. 30, 82-83 , 665 A.2d 223, 249 (1995) (rejecting similar constitutional challenges to Maryland death penalty statute), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1021 , 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996); Wiggins v. State, 324 Md. 551, 582-83 , 597 A.2d 1359, 1374 (1991) (finding no merit in challenges to defendant’s burden regarding statutorily recognized and other mitigating factors and to burden of proof), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1007 , 112 S.Ct. 1765 , 118 L.Ed.2d 427 (1992).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Conyers v. State · Conyers v. State“A juror’s having had prior experience as a juror, witness, victim or defendant in a criminal proceeding of any kind, or in one involving a crime of violence, is not per se disqualifying. It is even less tenable to argue that a juror is disqualified simply because of the experience of a member of the prospective juror’s family or on the part of a close personal friend.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wagner v. State · Dingle v. State“A trial court’s process of deteimining whether a proposed inquiry is reasonably likely to reveal disqualifying partiality or bias includes weighing the expenditure of time and resources in the pursuit of the reason for the response to a proposed voir dire question against the likelihood that pursuing the reason for the response will reveal bias or partiality.”
3 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.