40 Md. App. 92 - Kohr v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 55 Md. App. 1 - Grant v. State (1983), 77 Md. App. 77 - P v. Properties, Inc. v. Rock Creek Village Associates Ltd. Partnership (1988)
58 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Boykin v. Alabama · Johnson v. Zerbst · Barker v. Wingo
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Rule 736. Motions Before Trial. a. Mandatory Motions. A motion asserting one of the following matters shall be filed in conformity with this Rule. Any such matter not raised in accordance with this Rule is waived, unless the court, for good cause shown, orders otherwise: 1. A defect in the institution of the prosecution; * * * b. Time for Filing Mandatory Motions. A motion filed pursuant to section a of this Rule shall be filed within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the court pursuant to Rule 723 (Appearance — Provision for or Waiver of Counsel), except when discovery is furnished on an issue which is the subject of the motion, then the motion may be filed within five days after the discovery is furnished.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The Maryland Constitution, Article IV, Section 18A, vests in the Court of Appeals the power to promulgate rules of practice and procedure in the administration of the appellate courts and the other courts of the state and these rules 'shall have the force of law until rescinded, changed or modified by the Court of Appeals or otherwise by law.’ ... The rules, when adopted within their authorized scope, are legislative in nature.... It is clear that the Court of Appeals in adopting new Rule 736 decided, as a matter of judicial policy and administration, to make the Maryland rule parallel to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proce dure.... The defendant is still afforded an opportunity to litigate the issue and the requirements of Rule 736 do not amount to an unconstitutional burden on the accused.” (footnote omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The basis for the grant of this rule-making power is the recognition that in order to provide for the orderly administration of justice reasonable and specific rules of procedure are necessary. The rule-making power, like all legislative power, must be exercised within the confines of the United States Constitution and our own Constitution.””
2 later decisions 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.