State v. Rich’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in determining whether the ultimate disposition of the coram nobis court constitutes an abuse of discretion, appellate courts should not disturb the coram nobis court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, while legal determinations shall be reviewed de novo.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 Md. App. 510 - Duncan v. State · Hyman v. State

2. “[W]hen challenging a guilty plea on [application for leave to appeal a conviction following a guilty plea], the reviewing court is limited to the record of the plea hearing itself. But, when challenging a guilty plea through a petition for writ of error coram nobis , the coram nobis court may consider additional evidence, such as the trial lawyer's testimony regarding his or her conversations with the defendant explaining the terms of the plea, in addition to the record of the plea hearing itself.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tate v. State

3. “This distinction is vital, as in a coram nobis case such as this one, the only issue is whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges- regardless of whether the trial court could determine as much. By contrast, in an appeal of a conviction after a plea such as the one in Daughtry , the ultimate issue depends on what the trial court could find, and that issue is necessarily limited to what happened at the plea hearing, which includes the entirety of what the trial court could find.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tate v. State