State v. Wiegmann’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fezell (2000), Towson University v. Conte (2004)
2 federal appellate · 95 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 Terry v. Ohio · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · Wood v. Strickland · Adler v. American Standard Corp.
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] master is not a judicial officer, and the Maryland Constitution does not vest a master with any judicial powers.” Wiegmann, 350 Md. at 593 , 714 A.2d at 845 (citing In re Anderson, 272 Md. 85, 106 , 321 A.2d 516, 527 (1974) (holding that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] master is not the trial judge. A master does not replace her or him.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We believe the points raised by petitioner have merit. We cannot say, however, that the right to resist is unsound or unsuitable to a modern society. Were we to abrogate the common law rule, the only remaining remedies for an unlawful arrest would be release followed by a civil or criminal action, such as an action for false imprisonment. We have said that such remedies may be inadequate. Rodgers [v. State], 280 Md. [406], 421, 373 A.2d [944], 952 [ (1977) ]. Furthermore, the Legislature is presumed to be cognizant of the holdings of our cases, including Rodgers, which was decided over twenty years ago. Even though we have criticized several aspects and outcomes of the application of the right to resist, the Legislature has failed to respond to this criticism as it has yet to alter or abolish the common law privilege in spite of the period of time this issue has been discussed in our cases.... Accordingly, we decline to abolish the long-standing common law privilege permitting persons to resist an illegal warrantless arrest. We believe this change is best left to the Legislature and its primary power to, in the first instance, declare the public policy of this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.