Stanley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Chow v. State (2006), Ray v. State (2009)
66 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 Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore · Marriott Employees Federal Credit Union v. Motor Vehicle Administration · Degren v. State · Mayor of Baltimore v. Chase · Price 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) (1) A person may not possess a regulated firearm if the person was previously convicted of: (i) A crime of violence; or (ii) A violation of § 5-602, § 5-603, § 5-604, § 5-605, § 5-606, § 5-607, § 5-608, § 5-609, § 5-612, § 5-613, or § 5-614 of the Criminal Law Article. (2) A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment for not less than 5 years, no part of which may be suspended. (3) A person sentenced under paragraph (1) of this subsection may not be eligible for parole.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Jones v. State · Oglesby v. State““Section 449 (e), by its plain structure, is divided into two requirements. The first requirement is that the defendant have a previous conviction of a crime that falls within § 441(e). The second requirement is that the defendant have a current conviction under § 445(d)(1)(i) and (ii).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Alston v. State · Pye v. State““We are aware that this Court has reviewed the legislative history of a statute which we have pronounced clear and unambiguous. In those circumstances, that is a confirmatory process, see [Design Kitchen & Baths v.]Lagos, 388 Md. 718, 730 , 882 A.2d 817, 824 [(2005)]; State v. Glass, 386 Md. 401, 411 , 872 A.2d 729, 735 (2005); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 128 , 756 A.2d 987, 991 (2000) (when the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, ‘the resort to legislative history is a confirmatory process; it is not undertaken to contradict the plain meaning of the statute'); Coleman v. State, 281 Md. 538, 546 , 380 A.2d 49, 54 (1977) (‘a court may not as a general rule surmise a legislative intention contrary to the plain language of a statute or insert exceptions not made by the legislature'), not a contradictory one.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Chow 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.