Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 348 Md. 19 - Ware v. State

Ware v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

118 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Merritt v. State (2001), Patterson v. State (1999)

118 state decisions

5701997200020102020decided

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 · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States

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

  1. “(1) that the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence that is (2) favorable to the defense—either because it is exculpatory, provides a basis for mitigation of sentence, or because it provides grounds for impeaching a witness—and (3) that the suppressed evidence is material.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the requested instruction is a correct statement of the law; (2) the requested instruction is applicable under the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the requested instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in the jury instruction actually given.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““A foundation simply must be laid through the witness’s testimony that the evidence fairly and accurately depicts what it purports to depict (a subject as to which the witness has the required knowledge) and that it will be helpful to the witness in explaining his or her testimony. It is then admissible in the trial court’s discretion.... ” ❖ 4: * “The court must weigh the demonstrative evidence’s probative value against the possibility of unfair prejudice or confusion.””
    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.