Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 394 Md. 40 - Pollard v. State

Pollard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Bartholomey v. State · Director of Patuxent Institution v. DANIELS OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION · Maus v. State · Bradley v. Hazard Technology Co. · State v. Chaney

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

  1. “Because the alleged illegality did not inhere in the sentence itself, the motion to correct an illegal sentence is not appropriate. The sentence imposed was neither illegal, in excess of that prescribed for the offense for which Petitioner was convicted, nor were the terms of the sentence itself statutorily or constitutionally invalid.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““We hold that a sentencing judge’s failure to recognize his or her right to exercise discretion in the imposition of a sentence does not render the sentence illegal within the meaning of Md. Rule 4-345(a).””
    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.