Cuffley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
60 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Santobello v. New York · Lamarque v. Chavis · General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels · United States v. Harvey · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny question that later arises concerning the meaning of the sentencing term of a binding plea agreement must be resolved by resort solely to the record established at the [Maryland] Rule 4-243 plea proceeding. The record of that proceeding must be examined to ascertain precisely what was presented to the court, in the defendant’s presence and before the court accepts the agreement, to determine what the defendant reasonably understood to be the sentence the parties negotiated and the court agreed to impose. The test for determining what the defendant reasonably understood at the time of the plea is an objective one. It depends not on what the defendant actually understood the agreement to mean, but rather, on what a reasonable lay person in the defendant’s position and unaware of the niceties of sentencing law would have understood the agreement to mean, based on the record developed at the plea proceeding.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hartman v. State · Smith v. State“Did the Court of Special Appeals err by affirming the Circuit Court’s judgment that a sentence below a binding plea agreement constitutes an illegal sentence [within the meaning of Rule 4-345(a) ]?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“eliminate many of the risks, uncertainties and practical burdens of trial, permit the judiciary and prosecution to concentrate their resources on those cases in which they are most needed, and further law enforcement by permitting the State to exchange leniency for information and assistance.” Brockman, 111 Md. at 693, 357 A.2d at 381 . For these reasons,”
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.