Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 Md. 603 - Heil v. Zahn

Heil v. Zahn’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Beahm v. Shortall (1977), Smith v. Jones (1964)

31 state decisions

7019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Bowman v. Little · Whitridge v. Whitridge · Wilks v. Burns · Mannix v. Baumgardner · Cook v. Hollyday

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.

  1. “Q. You say you bought groceries, did the cleaning and scrubbing about the House? A. I did. Q. And you were perfectly satisfied with the arrangements and conditions under which you were working for those six years, were you not? A. I was not. Q. Were you compelled to stay there for any reason whatsoever? A. You heard the note, loyalty, I am loyal. Q. Other than loyalty, that was the reason you stayed, was it? A. No, I was promised more when he was able to pay it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We think the answer was responsive to the question and was admissible and should not have been stricken out. It would seem that a witness cross-examined by the opposite party is “called to testify by the opposite party”. In any event when the opposite party asks a question he not only invites but requires an answer and thereby waives any right to object to a responsive answer.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “not offered as testimony from the testator that he did not owe the amount claimed but merely to show the fact that by his will he made a bequest to the plaintiff-appellant”
    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.