65 Md. App. 498 - Campbell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 93 Md. App. 422 - Lamb v. State (1992), 75 Md. App. 411 - Eades v. State (1988)
38 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 Blockburger v. United States · Dorsey v. State · Desist v. United States · State v. Fabritz · Washington Homes, Inc. v. Interstate Land Development Co.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court of Appeals recently held in Walczak v. State, 302 Md. 422, 427 , 488 A.2d 949 (1985), that “when the trial court has allegedly imposed a sentence not permitted by law, the issue should ordinarily be reviewed on direct appeal even if no objection was made in the trial court.” The Court relied on the provisions of Rule 4-345(a), allowing an illegal sentence to be corrected at any time, and the fact that a defendant could have an impermissible sentence set aside, regardless of objection at trial, on post-conviction review. The question for us is whether the failure to merge two offenses for sentencing purposes where the sentences are imposed concurrently, may result in a sentence “not permitted by law.” We hold that it does.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Generally, it has been held improper to remark on the personal appearance of an accused, except where identity is in issue or where the remark is with respect to the accused’s appearance while testifying.... The circumstances and the nature and language of the comment, however, may render the remark an exception to the general rule.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“both manifestly wrong and substantially injurious.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.