72 Md. App. 239 - Tibbs v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably 84 Md. App. 269 - Marks v. State (1990), 82 Md. App. 489 - Ezenwa v. State (1990)
26 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 Bruton v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · Booth v. Maryland · Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Dorsey 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"But for the fact that the evidence against Mark Tibbs was overwhelming, despite the assistant State’s attorney's efforts to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we would reverse this case and remand it for a new trial. Our review of the record, however, convinces us that the prosecutor’s misdirected zeal did not deny Tibbs due process of law. ****** “We recognize that a trial is not an afternoon tea or other polite social event. On the other hand, it is not trial by combat. The courts, over the years, have laid out carefully delineated boundaries in which the adversaries are free to fight. Contests are, however, confined to the area within the boundaries and governed by specific rules. It is counsel’s duty to abide by the rules and remain within the boundaries. "The prosecutor in this case was admonished by the court for questionable conduct on at least twelve different occasions. Additionally, on at least one of those occasions, she was threatened with a $500 fine for contempt of court. "Although the trial judge did 'keep the lid on’ the proceeding, perhaps he should have been a little less paternal and a little more authoritative. If that had occurred, we think it likely that many of the issues raised in this appeal would have been aborted at trial.’’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lopez v. State · Burke 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.