69 Md. App. 702 - Goldberg v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2011
8 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 Brack v. Wells · Coblentz v. State · Murphy v. Yates · 10 Md. App. 300 - State v. Hunter · Wells v. Price
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In authorizing from time to time the appointment of Deputy State’s Attorneys and Assistant State’s Attorneys for the various counties, [the Legislature] has, as to certain counties, expressly provided that the deputies and assistants shall have the same legal powers as the State’s Attorney to represent the State before grand juries. We consider this to be no more than an expression of what is implicit in Code, Art. 10, § 34. The fact that the power is not explicitly given to some counties does not mean that the Deputy State’s Attorneys and Assistant State’s Attorney of those counties may not be assigned the duty by the State’s Attorney of attending on the grand jurors and appearing in the trial of criminal proceedings.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The fact that the General Assembly, by art. 10, section 40, has been explicit in granting certain State’s Attorneys the authority to appoint temporary or Special Assistant State’s Attorneys, but has not done so in other cases does not mean the State’s Attorneys of other counties are not similarly empowered. By analogy to the holding in Aquilla , we conclude that the Legislature has merely given explicit recognition under some sub-sections of art 10, section 40 to a power already implicit under art. 10, section 34.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If advisable in a specific proceeding, a court may appoint an . . . assistant counsel for the State . . . or other officer, and may require his presence in court.”
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.