Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 Md. 581 - State v. Manck

State v. Manck’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Schisler v. State (2006), Rios v. Montgomery County (2005)

33 state decisions

170200520102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3731

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · Furman v. Georgia · Ring v. Arizona · Woodson v. North Carolina · Will v. United States

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

  1. “apply in this case, but it does not authorize this appeal. As noted above, that provision allows the State to appeal from a final judgment if the State alleges that the trial judge imposed or modified a sentence in violation of the Maryland Rules. Clements then argues that the circuit court's grant of the Rule 4-345(a) motion was not itself a final judgment because the resentencing has not yet occurred. Clements adds that, contrary to the State's view of Ruby , the circuit court did not”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(c)(1) In a criminal case, the State may appeal as provided in this subsection. (2) The State may appeal from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment, or inquisition. (3) The State may appeal from a final judgment if the State alleges that the trial judge: (i) Failed to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code; or (ii) Imposed or modified a sentence in violation of the Maryland Rules.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To use the writ to create jurisdiction beyond the boundaries set forth in statutes would essentially vest ... this Court with the power to define what can be appealed by the State merely by identifying the judicial act under consideration as extraordinary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.