State v. Luckett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘[W]e view the evidence and inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the prevailing party on the motion,’ ” here, the State. Owens v. State, 399 Md. 388, 403 , 924 A.2d 1072, 1080 (2007) (quoting State v. Rucker, 374 Md. 199, 207 , 821 A.2d 439, 444 (2003)), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1144 , 128 S.Ct. 1064 , 169 L.Ed.2d 813 (2008). “We defer to the motions court’s factual findings and uphold them unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous.” State v. Luckett, 413 Md. 360 , 375 n. 3, 993 A.2d 25 , 33 n. 3 (2010). “We, however, make our own independent constitutional appraisal, by reviewing the relevant law and applying it to the facts and circumstances of this case.” Id., 993 A.2d at 33 n. 3 (quotation marks and citation omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. State · Robinson v. State

2. “[1] that he has the right to remain silent, [2] that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, [3] that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and [4] that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 230 Md. App. 288 - Porter v. State · 198 Md. App. 124 - Angulo-Gil v. State

3. “In reviewing the Circuit Court’s ruling on the motion [to suppress], we consider only the facts and information contained in the record of the suppression hearing. We view the evidence and inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the prevailing party on the motion[.] We defer to the motions court’s factual findings and uphold them unless they are shown to be clearly erroneous. We, however, make our own independent constitutional appraisal, by reviewing the relevant case law and applying it to the facts and circumstances of this case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 230 Md. App. 288 - Porter v. State