Gray v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Schisler v. State (2006), Chow v. State (2006)
114 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · Oaks v. Connors · Jones v. State · Nesbit v. Government Employees Insurance
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] court's decision is an abuse of discretion when it is 'well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.'”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““According to Maryland Rule 8-131(c) ‘when an action has been tried without a jury, the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’ The clearly erroneous standard does not apply to legal conclusions. Nesbit v. GEICO, 382 Md. 65, 72 , 854 A.2d 879, 883 (2004). ‘When the trial court’s order “involves an interpretation and application of Maryland statutory and case law, our Court must determine whether the lower court’s conclusions are legally correct under a de novo standard of review.’ ” Nesbit, 382 Md. at 72 , 854 A.2d at 883 (quoting Walter v. Gunter, 367 Md. 386, 392 , 788 A.2d 609, 612 (2002)).””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he court may reopen a postconviction proceeding that was previously concluded if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” to have just such a meaning. We said,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State · Tate 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.