State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
147 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Schisler v. State (2006), Mayor of Oakland v. Mayor of Mountain Lake Park (2006)
147 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 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. P Casey P Casey · Hopkins v. Reeves · Oaks v. Connors · Webster v. United States · Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould
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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nevertheless, the rule of stare decisis is not an absolute. The United States Supreme .Court has stated that “it is common wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is not an ‘inexorable command.’ ” Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 854 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2808 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). This Court also has recognized that “it is sometimes advisable to correct a decision or decisions wrongly made in the first instance if it is found that the decision is clearly wrong and contrary to other established principles.” Townsend, 186 Md. at 417 , 47 A.2d at 370 ; see also Hearst Corp. v. State Dep’t of Assessments & Taxation, 269 Md. 625, 643-44 , 308 A.2d 679, 689 (1973) (“The doctrine of stare decisis, important as it is, is not to be construed as preventing us from changing a rule of law if we are convinced that the rule has become unsound in the circumstances of modern life.” (quoting White v. King, 244 Md. 348, 354 , 223 A.2d 763, 767 (1966)); Greenwood v. Greenwood, 28 Md. 369, 381 (1868) (“Previous decisions of this court should not be disturbed ... unless it is plainly seen that glaring injustice has been done or some egregious blunder committed.”).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“that, except as may be constitutionally authorized, the right of appeal is entirely dependent upon statutes”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“I join in the Court’s opinion ... in defining the word "Code” in [C.J.] § 12-302(c)(2) to include the Maryland Rules, thereby authorizing a State appeal when a circuit court exceeds the limitation on its revisory authority under Rule 4-345. The Court reserves on that question ..., but, for the guidance of the trial courts, I would not leave it hanging. The issue is an important one. It is before us in this case, and we should address it. Trial judges know that, absent a showing of fraud, mistake, or irregularity, they have no authority under Rule 4-345 to modify a lawful sentence except upon a motion filed within ninety days following imposition of the sentence. What must be made clear is, that, if they do make such a modification, in contravention of that rule, as was done both here and in Cardinell, the State may, and likely will, appeal, and that, upon such an appeal, absent some circumstances that I cannot now envision, the modification will be vacated.”
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.