Mallard v. Earl’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably 126 Md. App. 556 - McQuay v. Schertle (1999), 109 Md. App. 89 - Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Reading (1996)
2 district · 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 Fowler v. Smith · Sergeant Co. v. Pickett · Smith v. Bernfeld · Harper v. Higgs · Greenfeld v. Hook
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Ordinarily, in most boulevard cases, it is not material what the favored driver was doing. The accident would never have happened if the unfavored vehicle had yielded right of way, and the conduct of the unfavored driver is the sole proximate cause of the accident. But if it can be shown that the favored driver could have avoided the accident if he had been operating lawfully and with due care, then the negligence of the favored driver should be an issue for the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[T]he driver of the taxicab had the right to assume that [an unfavored driver] would stop and yield the right of way to him ... Even though the cab may have been travelling at a rapid rate of speed, it was the gross negligence of the [unfavored driver], and not the cab’s rate of speed, that was the proximate cause of the accident. It would be mere conjecture to say that the cab might not have been struck if its rate of speed had been different.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When requested by a party, the court has a duty to instruct the jury on that party's theory of the case, provided the proposed instruction is supported by the facts and is not otherwise adequately covered by the instructions”
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.