65 Md. App. 685 - Simms v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2015
23 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 Upper Pecos Ass'n v. Peterson · Reardon v. Meacham · Walczak v. State · Board of Educ., Garrett Co. v. Lendo · Coles 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If, indeed, as we indicated earlier, the granting of parole is an executive function to be exercised exclusively by the Parole Commission, it necessarily follows that only the Parole Commission can determine the conditions to be attached to a parole. For a court to attempt to do so would involve the exercise of a non-judicial function and would necessarily intrude upon the discretion committed to the Parole Commission. We do not believe that the legislature ever intended to violate the “Separation of Powers” doctrine and therefore the statute must be construed so as to preclude the imposition of parole conditions by a court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. DeLeon v. State“The cardinal rule of statutory construction is, of course, to ascertain and effectuate the actual legislative intention. No construction is required where the statutory provisions are unambiguous. Where a statute, however, is plainly susceptible of more than one meaning, construction is required. Under those circumstances we must consider not only the literal or usual meaning of words, but their meaning and effect in light of the setting, the objectives and purpose of the enactment. State v. Intercontinental, Ltd., 302 Md. 132, 137 [ 486 A.2d 174 ] (1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Parole ... is a purely executive function, the exercise of which must be, and by statute is, committed to an executive agency—the Maryland Parole Commission. See Md.Code Ann. art. 41, § 110(a): “The Commission has the exclusive power to ... ‘[authorize the parole of individuals sentenced under the laws of this State to any penal or correctional institution, jail, or other place of confinement or detention within this State____’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. DeLeon v. State
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.