88 Md. App. 306 - Harmony v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably 115 Md. App. 549 - Anderson v. Litzenberg (1997), 164 Md. App. 95 - Marquardt v. State (2005)
60 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 Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Morrison v. Olson · Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Martin Exploration Management Co. · Quantum Chemical Corp. v. Pratt · Massiah v. United States
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] party must bring his argument to the attention of the trial court with enough particularity that the court is aware first, that there is an issue before it, and secondly, what the parameters of the issue are.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n the context of a sex abuse case concerning a minor, when time is not an essential element of the offense, general allegations as to time are constitutionally sufficient if the actual date of the offense is unknown. The Court [in Mulkey ] explained that the “ability of a child to definitely state the date or dates of the offenses or to narrow the time frame of such occurrences viay be seriously hampered by a lack of memory.” Moreover, where the offense is of a continuing nature, it may simply be impossible for the State to provide specific dates in its charging document.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Malee v. State“The utterance need not be contemporaneous or simultaneous with the principal act. While it may be subsequent to it, it must be established that the exciting influence has not lost its sway or been dissipated by meditation. But the crucial factor is not so much the lapse of time or change of location but the continuance of a situation which insures that what is said is, in fact, a spontaneous reaction to the occurrence, rather than an independent, preconceived expression of the speaker’s will.”
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.