Tshiwala v. State’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. “.... We have consistently defined this category of 'illegal sentence' as limited to those situations in which the illegality inheres in the sentence itself[.]”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 230 Md. App. 157 - Ray v. State · 239 Md. App. 297 - McKinney v. State

2. “In a much later case where one of the parties asserted that a tribunal’s decision, allegedly in violation of a statute, meant that the tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Board of License Comm. v. Corridor, 361 Md. 403, 417-418 , 761 A.2d 916, 923 (2000), the Court stated: “Simply because a statutory provision directs a court ... to decide a case in a particular way, if certain circumstances are shown, does not create an issue going to the court’s ... subject matter jurisdiction. There have been numerous cases in this Court involving the situation where a trial court ... has jurisdiction over the subject matter, but where a statute directs the court ..., under certain circumstances, to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular way, ... and the tribunal erroneously refuses to do so because an error of statutory interpretation or an error of fact. In these situations, this Court has regularly held that the matter did not concern the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court....””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 229 Md. App. 86 - Lewis v. State

3. ““The prior acts of the Parole Commission and the Commissioner of Correction, which had the effect of denying inmates in Kanaras’s position the parole consideration to which they were entitled under the statutory scheme, did not render illegal Kanaras’s sentence. The illegality was in the conduct of the Parole Commission and the Commissioner of Correction; it did not inhere in Kanaras’s sentence. ... A motion under Rule 4-345(a) to correct an illegal sentence, [ ] was not an appropriate action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 230 Md. App. 157 - Ray v. State