8 Md. App. 51 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 13 Md. App. 220 - State v. Lawless (1971), 90 Md. App. 254 - Austin v. State (1992)
41 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 Chapman v. State of California · Bennett v. State · 3 Md. App. 270 - Fabian v. State · 5 Md. App. 507 - Sizemore v. State · Reynolds 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . [T]he trial judge clearly should not have given instructions regarding that count. However, no objection to the instructions was interposed by appellant as required by Md. Rule 756 f, and in the absence of objection an allegation of error in the instructions is not ordinarily reviewable by this Court. As we said in Parker v. State, 4 Md. App. 62, 67 [ 241 A. 2d 185 (1968)]: ‘The reason for the rule requiring objection as a prerequisite to appellate review is a salutary one, being designed to afford the trial judge an opportunity to correct inadvertent omissions or inaccuracies in his instructions, where the alleged error is one that might have been readily corrected if it had been called to the trial judge’s attention. Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562 [ 188 A. 2d 142 (1963)]; Canter v. State, 220 Md. 615 [ 155 A. 2d 498 (1959)]; Reynolds v. State, 219 Md. 319 [ 149 A. 2d 774 (1959)].’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.