Metheny v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Borchardt v. State (2001), Miller v. State (2004)
111 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Boykin v. Alabama · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Brady v. United States · Gregg v. Georgia
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'a reasonable decision based on the weighing of various alternatives.’ There is an abuse of discretion ‘where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the [trial] court.' ” See Fontaine v. State, 134 Md.App. 275, 288 , 759 A.2d 1136 (2000) quoting Metheny v. State, 359 Md. 576, 604 , 755 A.2d 1088 (2000), quoting In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598, 347 Md. 295 , 701 A.2d 110 (1997).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Plea of Guilty.—The court may accept a plea of guilty only after it determines, upon an examination of the defendant on the record in open court conducted by the court, the State’s Attorney, the attorney for the defendant, or any combination thereof, that (1) the defendant is pleading voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea; and (2) there is a factual basis for the plea. The court may accept the plea of guilty even though the defendant does not admit guilt. Upon refusal to accept a plea of guilty, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Stebbing is an exception to the general requirement that the intent to commit a crime accompany a forbidden act. [Citation omitted]. This exception, however, is justified, in part, because a felon who applies force to neutralize a victim should be held responsible for that action if the felon later decides to take advantage of the situation by robbing the victim. In essence, we have allowed, in such circumstances, for a constructive concurrence of the force and intent to steal at the time of the taking.”
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.