State v. Garnett’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 2020
15 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 727
Relies on Kelly v. Robinson · Thompson v. Virginia · Richley v. Norris · Castillo v. United States · Cherokee Corp. of Linden, Virginia, Inc. v. Capital Skiing Corp.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Restitution imposed under [§ 11-603 of the Criminal Procedure Article] “is a criminal sanction, not a civil remedy.” Grey v. Allstate Insurance Company, 363 Md. 445, 451 , 769 A.2d 891, 895 (2001) (emphasis in original). Judge Wilner, writing for this Court in Grey , traced the history of restitution and explained that it serves retributive, deterrent, and rehabilitative objectives, which are the principal functions of criminal punishment. Id. at 459-60 , 769 A.2d at 899-900 . We explained that penal goals are accomplished through restitution to the extent that the defendant is forced to focus on the harm that was caused to the victim. Grey, 363 Md. at 459 , 769 A.2d at 899 . Likewise, restitution is a monetary detriment to the defendant and “satisfies] society’s demand for meaningful justice,” thus serving the punitive objective of the criminal system.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Appellee] ... filed a “Motion to Dismiss and to Correct Illegal Sentence” in the circuit court, seeking that the State’s Motion to Allow Garnishment be dismissed and that the money judgment be vacated. [Appellee] claimed that the restitution order was illegal because she was found not criminally responsible and should not be held to account at all for the numerous crimes for which she was convicted. The State opposed the motion. On June 27, 2005, the circuit court granted [appellee’s] motion and dismissed the Motion to Allow Garnishment and vacated the July 25, 2001 money judgment. In spite of the Court of Appeals prior holding that the State’s motion should have been granted, the circuit court held that the imposition of the criminal restitution obligation on [appellee] was illegal as [appellee] alleged. This appeal followed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The order of restitution in favor of the Maryland State Police that was entered as part of criminal proceedings against [appellee] was a penal sanction to which she was subject, despite a finding of guilty but not criminally responsible. Because the restitution ordered in this case was a criminal sanction, it was not dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the State’s Motion to Allow Garnishment should have been granted.”
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.