44 Md. App. 59 - Cooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably State v. Hawkins (1992), 519 So. 2d 622 - Staten v. State (1988)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 Watson v. State · Pope v. State · Mumford v. Staton, Whaley & Price · Heinze v. State · Springloch Area Citizens Group v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A [murder] must have been committed by another prior to the accessoryship; (2) The accessory must not be a principal in the commission of the [murder]; (3) The accessory must have had knowledge of the [murder]; and (4) The accessory must act personally to aid or assist the [murderer] to avoid detection or apprehension for the crime____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a. Mandatory Motions. A motion asserting one of the following matters shall be filed in conformity with this Rule. Any such matter not raised in accordance with this Rule is waived, unless the court, for good cause shown, orders otherwise: 1. A defect in the institution of the prosecution; 2. A defect in the charging document, other than its failure to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense which defenses can be noticed by the court at any time; 3. An unlawful search, seizure, interception of wire or oral communication, or pretrial identification; 4. An unlawfully obtained admission, statement or confession; 5. A motion for joint or separate trial of defendants or offenses. g. Effect of Determination of Certain Motions. 2. Suppression of Evidence. If the court grants a motion to suppress evidence, the evidence shall be excluded and shall not be offered by the State at trial, except that suppressed evidence may be used in accordance with law for impeachment purposes. If the court denies a motion to suppress evidence, the ruling is binding at the trial unless the court, in the exercise of its discretion, grants a hearing de novo on a renewal of the motion. A pretrial ruling denying the motion to suppress is reviewable on a motion for a new trial or on appeal of a conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a statute creates an offense and specifies several different acts, transactions, or means by which it may be committed, an indictment for violation thereof may properly allege the offense in one count by charging the accused in conjunctive terms with doing any or all of the acts, transactions, or means specified in the statute.”
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.