74 Md. App. 377 - Coomes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2009
14 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Carroll v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Ventresca
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is clear that the burden of proof is allocated to the defendant to show his standing. The State has no obligation to show nonstanding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) demonstrate that the police had a prior valid justification for the intrusion; (2) prove circumstances which show that the evidence seized was found inadvertently; (3) show that the evidence was in plain view; and (4) show that the evidence was such that the police were immediately aware of its significance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It may very well be that [Ms. Coomes], had she presented evidence on the point, could have established her standing to challenge the search of the Bronco; however, on this record, we are unable to say that the court was truly erroneous in ruling that she did not have standing.”
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.