Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Md. 367 - Steinla v. Steinla

Steinla v. Steinla’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
July 1998
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably Schriver v. Schriver (1945), Abare v. Abare (1960)

30 state decisions

110194019501960197019801990decided

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 Campbell v. Campbell · Wendel v. Wendel · Swoyer v. Swoyer · Sterling v. Sterling · Harward v. Harward

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.

  1. ““Because of the secret and clandestine nature of the offence, it is rarely shown by direct proof, but must of necessity in most cases be proved by circumstantial evidence. Because of the stigma which the finding carries, and the possibilities of error inherent in proof of that nature, the general rule is that the quality of evidence required to establish it must be high, and its quantum sufficient to satisfy a reasonable mind of the truth of the charge. It need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, except where it is the subject of a criminal prosecution, nevertheless, to justify such a finding, the evidence must be such as to exclude any reasonable possibility of innocence. [Citations omitted.] It must go beyond proof of facts merely justifying suspicion, and show facts inconsistent with innocence. [Citations omitted.]””
    2 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.