Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 353 Md. 100 - Ruby v. State

Ruby v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Skok v. State (2000), Douglas v. State (2011)

49 state decisions

2801999200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on United State v. Morgan · United States v. Hayman · Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky · Smith v. Barry · First National City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba

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

  1. “[a] collateral challenge, by its very nature, is a separate and distinct civil procedure by which a defendant may challenge his or her conviction, sentence, or imprisonment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “At common law the ancient writ of error coram nobis has been available to correct errors of fact. It has been allowed, without limitation of time, for facts affecting the validity and regularity of the judgment, and has been used in both civil and criminal cases. While the occasions for its use have been infrequent, no one has doubted its availability. It is still available in Maryland in both civil and criminal cases.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The purpose of the writ is to bring before the court facts which were not brought into issue at the trial of the case, and which were material to the validity and regularity of the proceedings, and which, if known by the court, would have prevented the judgment.””
    1 later decision 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.