Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 Md. App. 485 - Couser v. State

36 Md. App. 485 - Couser v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
3
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Couser v. State (1978), Lee v. State (2008)

68 state decisions

200197719801990200020102020decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Brewer v. United States · Wilhelm v. State · 1 Cal. 3d 277 - People v. Brawley · Neusbaum v. State

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

  1. ““It is, of course, well established that the granting or denial of a motion for a new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and the action of the trial court upon such a motion will not be disturbed on appeal except under the most extraordinary and compelling reasons.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is fundamental to a fair trial that the prosecutor make no remarks calculated to unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendant. (Citations omitted.) The rule is, however, that unless it appears that the jury was actually misled or likely to have been misled or influenced to the prejudice of the accused by the remarks of the State’s Attorney, reversal of the conviction on this ground will not be justified. (Citations omitted.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) Whether the appellant waived his objection to the denial of his request at the trial for the use of the prosecutor’s jury dossier when, after the jury was selected, he stated that it was acceptable to him; and (2) Whether the appellant had a right to disclosure of the prosecutor’s jury dossier and, if so, whether the right is dependent upon a prior showing of prejudice to the accused.”
    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.