Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Reier v. State Department of Assessments & Taxation (2007), Garner v. Archers Glen Partners, Inc. (2008)
73 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 State v. Frazier · Houghton v. County Comm'rs of Kent Co. · Harris v. State · Maryland v. Kanaras · United States v. Mazak
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he “law of the case doctrine is one of appellate procedure.” ... Under the doctrine, once an appellate court rules upon a question presented on appeal, litigants and lower courts become bound by the ruling, which is considered to be the law of the case.... Not only are lower courts bound by the law of the case, but “[decisions rendered by a prior appellate panel will generally govern the second appeal” at the same appellate level as well, unless the previous decision is incorrect because it is out of keeping with controlling principles announced by a higher court and following the decision would result in manifest injustice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“'as a general principle, one judge of a trial court ruling on a matter is not bound by the prior ruling in the same case by another judge of the court.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The law of the case doctrine differs from res judicata in that it applies to court decisions [that are] made in the same, rather than a subsequent, case.... [B]ecause motions to correct an illegal sentence occur as part of the same criminal proceeding[,] and not a wholly independent action, ... res judicata might apply if such a motion was considered to be a wholly independent action.... [H]owever, [ ] this is unlikely to occur because, although Maryland Rule 4-345(a) provides that "[t]he court may correct an illegal sentence at any time," [ Maryland Rule 4-345(a) ] creates a limited exception to the general rule of finality by sanctioning a method of opening a judgment [that is] otherwise final and beyond the reach of the court. [Maryland] Rule 4-345(a) is a limited exception because it applies only to motions that occur as part of the same criminal proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nichols v. State
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.