Harris v. State’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. “... Mohawk Industries is instructive, if not binding, because it ... addresses appellate jurisdiction over final decisions arising from 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , which is read in pari materia with § 12-301 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. Sigma, 297 Md. at 664, 467 A.2d at 485 (citing Stewart v. State, 282 Md. 557, 571 , 386 A.2d 1206 (1978) (stating “there [is] no substantive difference between 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and the Maryland statute.”)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kurstin v. Bromberg Rosenthal, LLP

2. “treats as final and appealable interlocutory orders that (1) conclusively determine the disputed question; (2) resolve an important issue; (3) resolve an issue that is completely separate from the merits of the action; and (4) would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 217 Md. App. 174 - Abe v. State

3. “[i]f an order decides an issue merely as a step toward final disposition of a prosecution, it is interlocutory; however, if it disposes of a separable branch of the case, it is an appealable final judgment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 240 Md. App. 518 - In re: O.P.