4 Md. App. 515 - Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Street v. Surdyka (1974), Prout v. State (1988)
8 federal appellate · 69 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3052
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Dutton v. State · JOHNSON, ETC. v. State · Mulcahy v. State · Farrow 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule was not effective at the time of the appellant’s trial, but the substance of it was the preferred, procedure prior to its adoption. It was established before the rule was adopted that the determination of the admissibility of evidence which is dependent upon the lawfulness of an arrest should be made by the trial judge as a preliminary matter quite apart from the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused. “If the case is being tried before a jury, such a matter should be heard out of the presence of the jury.” Farrow v. State, 233 Md. 526, 533 , 197 A.2d 434 . Nor was it essential prior to the effective date of the rule, that a motion to suppress the evidence be made prior to trial. A motion to suppress the evidence and objection to its introduction at trial preserved a defendant’s basic constitutional right. Shrout v. State, 238 Md. 170, 174 [, 208 A.2d 585 (1965) ]. In the instant case we think the trial court erred in not determining the matter of the admissibility of the challenged evidence out of the presence of the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is clear that the common law differentiation between felonies and misdemeanors is not practical in application today. Nor can the Maryland system of differentiation be logically supported. In many instances there is no correlation between the designation of the offense as a felony or misdemeanor and the seriousness of the crime or the severity of the punishment permitted. . . . [P]eace officers in Maryland frequently find themselves under a handicap due to the unusual distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Street v. Surdyka“[w]hen a misdemeanor is committed in the presence of a police officer and information of such is promptly placed on the police radio or otherwise communicated and a description of the misdemeanant given, the arrest of the misdemeanant by another police officer within a reasonable time of receipt of the information is valid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Marquez
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.