Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 380 Md. 206 - Wilson v. Simms

Wilson v. Simms’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

1 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably B. SIFRIT v. State (2004), State v. Raines (2004)

1 district · 27 state decisions

180200420102020decided

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 Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould · Washington Homes, Inc. v. Interstate Land Development Co. · Philip Morris Inc. v. Angeletti · In Re Petition for Writ of Prohibition

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

  1. “'to prevent disorder, from a failure of justice, where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one.’ ” Wilson v. Simms, 380 Md. 206, 216 , 844 A.2d 412 (2004) (quoting Runkel v. Winemiller, 4 H. & McH. 429, 449 (Gen. Ct. Oct. Term 1799)). A court may grant the writ when a person has”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the remedies available to a grievant under this title are limited to the restoration of the rights, pay, status, or benefits that the grievant otherwise would have had if the contested policy, procedure, or regulation had been applied appropriately as determined by the final decision maker.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[I]f the right be doubtful, or the duty discretionary, or of a nature to require the exercise of judgment, or if there be any ordinary adequate legal remedy to which the party applying could have recourse, [the] writ will not be granted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.