Carter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 63 state decisions

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

1. “(a) Mandatory Motions. In the circuit court, the following matters shall be raised by motion in conformity with this Rule and if not so raised are waived unless the court, for good cause shown, orders otherwise: ... (3) An unlawful search, seizure, interception of wire or oral communication, or pretrial identification; ... (b) Time for Filing Mandatory Motions. A motion under section (a) of this Rule shall be filed within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the court pursuant to Rule 4-213(c), except when discovery discloses the basis for a motion, the motion may be filed within five days after the discovery is furnished. (e) Content. A motion filed pursuant to this Rule shall be in writing unless the court otherwise directs, shall state the grounds upon which it is made, and shall set forth the relief sought. A motion alleging an illegal source of information as the basis for probable cause must be supported by precise and specific factual averments. Every motion shall contain or be accompanied by a statement of points and citation of authorities. (f) Response. A response, if made, shall be filed within 15 days after service of the motion and contain or be accompanied by a statement of points and citation of authorities. (g) Determination. (1) Generally. Motions filed pursuant to this Rule shall be determined before trial and, to the extent practicable, before the day of trial.... If factual issues are involv”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sinclair v. State

2. “The Supreme Court in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), articulated the bases for a search incident to arrest, those being, “to remove any weapons that the [arrestee] might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape ... [or] to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.” Id. at 763 , 89 S.Ct. at 2040 , 23 L.Ed.2d at 694 ; see also United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 802-03 , 94 S.Ct. at 1234, 1237 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771, 775 (1974); United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 226 , 94 S.Ct. 467, 472 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427, 435 (1973); Carter, 367 Md. at 460 , 788 A.2d at 653 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Paulino v. State

3. “Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides: That all warrants, without oath or affirmation, to search suspected places, or to seize any person or property, are grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected places, or to apprehend suspected persons, with out naming or describing the place, or the person in special, are illegal, and ought not to be granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 Md. App. 107 - Ford v. Baltimore City Sheriff's Office