Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83 state decisions

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

1. “Maryland Rule 8-131(a) provides, in pertinent part: “Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any [] issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial eourt[.]” The purpose of Md. Rule 8-131(a) is “ ‘to ensure fairness for all parties in a case and to promote the orderly administration of law.’ ” State v. Bell, 334 Md. 178, 189 , 638 A.2d 107, 113 (1994) (quoting Brice v. State, 254 Md. 655, 661 , 255 A.2d 28, 31 (1969)). Fairness and the orderly administration of justice is advanced “by ‘requiring counsel to bring the position of their client to the attention of the lower court at the trial so that the trial court can pass upon, and possibly correct any errors in the proceedings.’ ” Bell, 334 Md. at 189 , 638 A.2d at 113 (quoting Cl ayman v. Prince George’s County, 266 Md. 409, 416 , 292 A.2d 689, 693 (1972)). For those reasons, Md. Rule 8-131(a) requires an appellant who desires to contest a court’s ruling or other error on appeal to have made a timely objection at trial. The failure to do so bars the appellant from obtaining review of the claimed error, as a matter of right.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Savoy v. State · Boulden v. State

2. “"The right to a public trial, though `fundamental,' is not within the `narrow band of rights that courts have traditionally required an individual knowingly and intelligently [to] relinquish or abandon in order to waive the right or claim.' Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 138 , 691 A.2d 1255, 1262 (1997). Unlike, say, the rights to a jury trial, to counsel, and to require the State to prove its case, which are absolute and can only be foregone by the defendant's affirmative `intelligent and knowing' waiver, the right to a public trial is subject to the balance of competing concerns."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boulden v. State · 237 Md. App. 389 - Smallwood v. State

3. “advanced by requiring counsel to bring the position of their client to the attention of the lower court at the trial so that the trial court can pass upon, and possibly correct any errors in the proceedings. For those reasons, Md. Rule 8-131(a) requires an appellant who desires to contest a court's ruling or other error on appeal to have made a timely objection at trial. The failure to do so bars the appellant from obtaining review of the claimed error, as a matter of right.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Boulden v. State · 209 Md. App. 174 - Robinson v. State