36 Md. App. 124 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably Gunning v. State (1997), 40 Md. App. 92 - Kohr v. State (1978)
36 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Haynes v. Washington · Davis v. North Carolina · Haley v. Ohio · Clewis v. Texas
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“594A. Transfer of certain juvenile causes. (a) Transfer to juvenile court. — In any case, except as provided in subsection (b), involving a child who has reached 14 years of age but has not reached 18 years of age at the time of any alleged offense excluded under the provisions of 3 — 804(e)(1), (4), or (5) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, the court exercising jurisdiction may transfer the case to the juvenile court if a waiver is believed to be in the interests of the child or society. (b) Certain causes not transferable. — The court may not transfer a case to the juvenile court under subsection (a) if: (3) The alleged offense is murder in the first degree and the accused child is 16 or 17 at the time the alleged offense was committed. Section 3-804 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article reads, in pertinent part, as follows: (e) The [juvenile] court does not have jurisdiction over: (1) A child 14 years old or older alleged to have done an act which, if committed by an adult, would be a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment, as well as all other charges against the child arising out of the same incident, unless an order removing the proceeding to the court has been filed under Article 27, § 594A; (4) A child 16 years old or older alleged to have committed the crime of robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon or attempted robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon, as well as all other charges against the child arising out of the same incident, ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule in Maryland is that a lay witness is not qualified to express an opinion about matters which are either within the scope of common knowledge and experience of the jury or which are peculiarly within the specialized knowledge of experts.”
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.