Young v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding the Maryland statutory offender statute is not punitive for due process and Sixth Amendment purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Young v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2002-08-30· cited 54×
• State v. Haskell
  Supreme Judicial Court of Maine· 2001-11-05· cited 36×

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Apprendi v. New Jersey
  Supreme Court· 2000-06-26· cited 28,372×
• In Re WINSHIP
  Supreme Court· 1970-05-18· cited 11,712×
• Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
  Supreme Court· 1963-02-18· cited 2,208×
• Jones v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1999-03-24· cited 2,200×
• Kansas v. Hendricks
  Supreme Court· 1997-06-23· cited 2,057×
• United States v. Halper
  Supreme Court· 1989-05-15· cited 1,945×
• McMillan v. Pennsylvania
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-19· cited 1,908×
• Austin v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1993-06-28· cited 1,908×
• United States v. Ursery
  Supreme Court· 1996-06-24· cited 1,314×
• California Department of Corrections v. Morales
  Supreme Court· 1995-04-25· cited 1,142×
• Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch
  Supreme Court· 1994-06-06· cited 1,050×
• United States v. Ward
  Supreme Court· 1980-08-22· cited 969×
• De Veau v. Braisted
  Supreme Court· 1960-06-06· cited 494×
• Unnamed case
  Third Circuit· 1996-04-12· cited 365×
• People v. Malchow
  Illinois Supreme Court· 2000-09-21· cited 309×
• Nos. 96-5132, 96-5416
  Third Circuit· 1997-09-04· cited 301×
• Femedeer v. Haun
  Tenth Circuit· 2000-08-28· cited 290×
• Seling v. Young
  Supreme Court· 2001-01-17· cited 287×
• Arthur Cutshall, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Don Sundquist, Govenor of the State of Tennessee, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
  Sixth Circuit· 1999-10-04· cited 255×
• Russell v. Gregoire
  Ninth Circuit· 1997-09-04· cited 193×