Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 46 Md. App. 312 - Linkey v. State

46 Md. App. 312 - Linkey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2010

10 state decisions

401980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States v. Crews · Belcher v. Government Employees Insurance · 31 Md. App. 25 - Barnes v. State · 38 Md. App. 343 - Gray v. State

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

  1. “[A]n accused is not necessarily put to the choice of abandoning his challenge to the obtention of critical evidence by entering into an agreement with the State. But to preserve his complaint, he must require the State to utilize the evidence which he has unsuccessfully challenged, and not absolve the prosecutor of that obligation by conceding the ultimate facts sought to be proved by the allegedly improper evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]ll the court was asked to do was to determine whether, as a matter of law, those facts sufficed to constitute [the charged crime].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If such evidence is never admitted * * * at trial, it is difficult to see where there could be error based on the [c]onstitutional exclusionary rule; indeed, in such a case, the trial would be entirely consistent and in accord with the exclusionary rule, not in opposition to it.”
    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.