Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 Md. App. 22 - Baldwin v. State

5 Md. App. 22 - Baldwin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 1981
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1981 · most notably United States v. Ash (1973), Wilhelm v. State (1974)

6 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

320196819701980decided

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 United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno · Irvin v. Dowd · United States Ex Rel. Darcy v. Handy

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

  1. ““The granting of a mistrial is an exercise which rests within the discretion of the trial judge. A mistrial should be granted only where plain and obvious reasons exist, upon the greatest caution and under urgent circumstances. Where, in the exercise of this discretion, the trial court refuses to grant a mistrial, such a decision will not be disturbed on appeal without giving full regard to the fact ‘that the trial court is in an advantageous position to judge the question of prejudice, and its decision with reference thereto should not be reversed unless it is clear that there was prejudice.’ ” (citations omitted).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
    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.