Mosley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably Jones v. State (2004), Rush v. State (2008)
4 federal appellate · 72 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 Strickland v. Washington · Glasser v. United States · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Cronic · Kimmelman v. Morrison
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Reviewing courts must thus assume, until proven otherwise , that counsel's conduct fell within a broad range of reasonable professional judgment, and that counsel's conduct derived not from error but from trial strategy.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rare instances in which we have permitted direct review are instructive, because they indicate our willingness to entertain such claims on direct review only when the facts in the trial record sufficiently illuminate the basis for the claim of ineffectiveness of counsel. As we explained in In re Parris W. [ 363 Md. 717, 727 , 770 A.2d 202 ], direct review is an exception that applies only when “the critical facts are not in dispute and the record is sufficiently developed to permit a fair evaluation of the claim.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the sentence or judgment was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of the State; (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack on a ground of alleged error that would otherwise be available under a writ of habeas corpus, writ of coram nobis, or other common law or statutory remedy.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rush v. State · Frasch v. Peguese
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.