Cooley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably King v. State (2009), Arrington v. State (2009)
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 Doyle v. Ohio · Wilhelm v. State · Thompson v. United States · State v. Walton · MacK v. State
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he abuse of discretion standard requires a trial judge to use his or her discretion soundly”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he determining factor as to whether a mistrial is necessary is whether 'the prejudice to the defendant was so substantial that he [or she] was deprived of a fair trial.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Many years ago, in evaluating the possible prejudicial effect of the admission of specific evidence in a particular case, this Court stated: “Generally, the choice of measures to protect the fair, unprejudiced, working of its proceedings is left to the discretion of the trial court, and only in exceptional cases will its choice be reviewed in this court. In the greater number of instances the injection into a trial of matter other than that involved in the issue to be decided is cured by withdrawal of it and an instruction to the jury to disregard it, but there may, of course, be instances in which it would not be cured in this way, and terminating the trial and taking the case up afresh before another jury would be the only adequate means of correction. Those instances are exceptional, but they do arise.” Nelson v. Seiler, 154 Md. 63, 72 , 139 A. 564 (1927). As we have indicated, a trial judge is afforded considerable discretion in deciding a motion for mistrial, and “in a case involving a question of prejudice which might infringe upon the right of the defendant to a fair trial, [that decision] is reviewable on appeal to determine whether or not there has been as abuse of that discretion by the trial court in denying the mistrial.” Wilhelm [v. State], 272 Md. [404,] 429, 326 A.2d 707 [(1974)] (alteration added). See also Tierco Maryland, Inc. v. Williams, 381 Md. 378 , 849 A.2d 504 (2004)....”
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.