Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 Md. App. 514 - State v. White

41 Md. App. 514 - State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
2
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2010 · most notably 66 Md. App. 304 - Nelson v. State (1986), 69 Md. App. 173 - Collins v. State (1986)

28 state decisions

20019791980199020002010decided

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 Coleman v. State · 38 Md. App. 611 - Alston v. State · 16 Md. App. 675 - Magrogan v. Warden

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

  1. “"... A judge must relate the sentence he imposes to the status quo at the moment of sentencing. He may deal with the present or the past as concrete reality. He may make his sentence concurrent with or consecutive to whatever other sentence then exists, either 1) actually being served or 2) in suspension but with ever-present potentiality for lifting of that suspension.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"From the first judge in the sentencing sequence, the adverbs 'concurrently’ and 'consecutively’ are but empty gestures. A judge cannot imbue the sentence, in any controlling fashion, with power over the future judicial actions of others. His sentence may not be consecutive or concurrent to something which does not yet (and may never) exist. The first sentencing judge simply creates that status quo to which a later sentencing judge may relate.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The control function is one-dimensional — backward. The later sentence may control the combined effect of the later and the earlier — not vice-versa. In determining what is earlier and what is later, we look to the time of original imposition of sentence and not to the time of later modification. It is at that earlier point that the batting order is frozen. Id. at 518 , 397 A.2d at 302 .”
    1 later decision 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.