State v. Huntley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We hold that the Curley two-pronged exceptions test, and the concurrent Hicks sanction of dismissal, are inapplicable where the State’s nol pros follows a denial of its motion to amend an indictment, at least where bad faith on the part of the State to delay is not shown. This Court designed the Curley exceptions in order to prevent the State from using its nol pros power to evade the 180-day deadline and delay trial of a defendant’s case beyond 180 days. Where the State’s nol pros instead is used to remedy a genuinely flawed indictment, the concerns of Curley are not present. The severe sanction of a Hicks dismissal is reserved for situations where the State seeks to circumvent the strictures of § 6-103(a) and Rule 4-271(a)(l) and unjustifiably delay a defendant’s trial beyond 180-days. This is not such a case on the record as it exists presently.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 192 Md. App. 192 - Collins v. State

2. “A nolle prosequi, or nol pros, is an action taken by the State to dismiss pending charges when it determines that it does not intend to prosecute the defendant under a particular indictment.” State v. Huntley, 411 Md. 288 , 291 n. 4, 983 A.2d 160 , 162 n. 4 (2009) (citing Ward v. State, 290 Md. 76, 83 , 427 A.2d 1008, 1012 (1981)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Silver v. State