Stone v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Litz v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (1997), Murphy v. Merzbacher (1997)
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 51 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 Illinois v. Allen · United States v. Mauro · Carchman v. Nash New Jersey Department of Corrections · Fex v. Michigan · State v. Hicks
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A defendant convicted in the District Court may appeal to the circuit court for a trial de novo. See Md.Code (1974, 1995 RepLVol., 1996 Cum.Supp.) § 12-401 (f) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (an appeal from District Court to circuit court shall be tried de novo). The trial de novo in circuit court proceeds on the original District Court charging document, Lewis v. State, 289 Md. 1, 4-5 , 421 A.2d 974, 977 (1980), and the District Court judgment remains in effect pending the appeal to the circuit court, unless and until superseded by a judgment of the circuit court or a disposition by nolle prosequi or stet. Maryland Rule 7-112; see Stanton v. State, 290 Md. 245 [246], 428 A.2d 1224 [1225] (1981). De novo appeals, however, are treated ‘as wholly original proceedings, that is, as if no judgment had been entered in the lower court.’ Hardy v. State, 279 Md. 489, 493 , 369 A.2d 1043 [1046] (1977). Thus, under the Maryland scheme, the circuit court proceeding occupies a unique position as both an appeal and a trial. Because the District Court judgment remains in effect after a circuit court appeal has been dismissed, dismissal of the appeal has different consequences than the dismissal of charges in an original trial. Dismissal of the charges in an original trial often benefits the defendant, particularly when the charges are dismissed with prejudice. Dismissal of the circuit court appeal, on the other hand, deprives the appellant of his right to appeal a District ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mobuary v. State“a notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence, advising that he is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction.” Stone v. State, 344 Md. 97, 108 , 685 A.2d 441 (1996) (quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Boone, 40 Md.App. 41, 44 , 388 A.2d 150 (1978) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he District Court trial is complete unto itself. It does not act as a preliminary proceeding to a possible de novo appeal. Nor does the de novo appeal ‘wipe the slate clean.’ ” Stone v. State, 344 Md. 97 , 105 n. 5, 685 A.2d 441 , 444 n. 5 (1996). . Maryland Rule 4-231, as relevant, provides:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mobuary v. State
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.