Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 Md. 686 - Jones v. State

Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

33 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · Furman v. Georgia · Williams v. People of State of New York · Hill v. United States · United States v. Goodwin

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

  1. “based upon the facts and circumstances of the crime committed and the background of the defendant, including his or her reputation, prior offenses, health, habits, mental and moral propensities, and social background.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The mandate of the intermediate appellate court was clear: the trial court was to issue “a new sentence in accordance with the views expressed in [its] opinion.” The court certainly did not expressly foreclose the trial court from considering mitigating evidence. It is also significant that the “views expressed” did not include a directive that the trial court impose a term of years, or any particular sentence. The court simply held that a merger of two of the sentences was required---- Thus, the Court of Special Appeals only instructed the trial court to merge the two convictions, for sentencing purposes, without any additional express or implied limitations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Sentence imposed under Count 3 of indictment No. 103149031 for first-degree assault and sentence imposed under Count 1 of indictment No. 103149033 (robbery with a deadly weapon) vacated; case remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for imposition of a new sentence in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion; judgments otherwise affirmed; costs to be divided equally between appellant and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.