11 Md. App. 182 - Kowalewski v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably 34 Md. App. 706 - Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Schruefer (1977), 13 Md. App. 497 - Murphy v. Board of County Commissioners (1971)
2 federal appellate · 29 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 Harper v. Higgs · State v. Hutchinson · Jones v. Federal Paper Board Co. · Grue v. Schmidbauer · State Roads Commission v. Creswell
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The lower court submitted to the jury, and we think properly so, the issue whether the collision occurred while the Kowalewski car was entering Route 22 or whether at the time his car was struck by the Carter car he had yielded the right-of-way and become a part of the flow of traffic on the favored highway. The evidence was not conclusive that the accident did occur while entering. There was no evidence that the collision occurred within the confines of the intersection so the presumption that the unfavored driver was entering the favored highway at the time of the accident did not arise. Nor was the evidence conclusive that the unfavored car had successfully entered.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paul v. Lyons““The trooper was specifically singled out by the trial judge to the jury in the challenged instruction and they may well have felt, at the least, that, contrary to what they had a right to do, they were precluded from rejecting his testimony entirely. If so it would affect the jury’s evaluation of the credibility of the other witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. We feel that the challenged instruction, standing uncorrected and unexplained, tended to mislead the jury and that appellant is entitled to a new trial.” 15”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * The Rule does provide that ‘the ground of his objection’ shall be stated, but it was perfectly evident, particularly in the light of the other parts of the charge regarding credibility, that the ground was that the credibility of the trooper was solely for the jury and that to tell them that he ‘has to be given some credence’ was wrong. It is inconceivable that the court and opposing counsel did not comprehend that this was the ground of the exception. We shall consider the contention on its merits.””
1 later decision 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.