56 Md. App. 162 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2005
20 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 Burks v. United States · Morris v. Slappy · New Yorker Magazine, Inc. v. Gerosa · National Theatres Corp. v. Bertha Building Corp. · United States v. Dujanovic
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The language used by the Legislature shows an intent to limit the application of § 6I¡.3B to repeat offenders of crimes actually involving force or violence. While the defendant’s District of Columbia convictions may in fact have been violent crimes, this is not necessarily so, nor is it discernible from the docket entries received into evidence. The State has thus failed to introduce evidence showing that the District of Columbia convictions were ‘[cjrimes of violence’ within the meaning of Art. 27, § 643B.” (footnote omitted; emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The court required the trial to go forward; the election of either self-representation or continuing with experienced counsel was left to appellant. All of the hazards were explained to him. It matters not that his choice was reluctantly made. At appellant’s express request the jury was advised that counsel were not representing him. The court, however, explaining that counsel was learned in the law and, in all probability, would be helpful m answering questions that may arise, required one attorney to remain to assist appellant. In sum, appellant was allowed to represent himself with the assistance of counsel. Nothing more is required.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[c]utting cacti in California, uprooting the state flower (rhododendron) in West Virginia, or desecrating a Confederate cemetery in Mississippi may be felonies punishable by imprisonment in those states. We, however, would not consider such acts as proper bases for mandatory sentencing, no matter how they are viewed by the several jurisdictions.” Mitchell v. State, 56 Md.App. 162 , 467 A.2d 522, 533 (Ct.Spec.App.1983).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Menard
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.