42 Md. App. 357 - State v. Strickland’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2016
15 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Brown · Malatkofski v. United States · Clark v. United States · Thorpe v. Carte · 37 Md. App. 395 - Pannone v. McLaughlin
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) In a criminal case, the State may appeal as provided in this subsection. (1) The State may appeal from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment, or inquisition. (2) The State may appeal from a final judgment if the State alleges that the trial judge failed to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code. (3) ... In a case involving a crime of violence as defined in § 643B of Article 27, and in cases under §§ 286 and 286A of Article 27, the State may appeal from a decision of a trial court that excludes evidence offered by the State or requires the return of property alleged to have been seized in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Con stitution of Maryland, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think Strickland’s petition, even though filed in the criminal case, was a request that the court determine title to personal property. As such, regardless of what Strickland chooses to call it, that aspect of the case is civil, not criminal, and it matters not one whit that the money was introduced as evidence in a trial for violation of a criminal statute. We hold that the proceeding in the circuit court to recover money that was introduced into evidence, in a bribery trial, was civil in nature, and that the State has the right to appeal an order of court directing that the money be paid over to the briber.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.