Olney v. Carmichael’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
2 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Coffey v. Derby Steel Co. (1981), West v. Belle Isle Cab Co. (2001)
2 district · 38 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 Baltimore Transit Co. v. State Ex Rel. Castranda · Slacum v. Jolley · Eisenhower v. Baltimore Transit Co. · Foble v. Knefely · Miller v. Graff
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The evidence in a case is legally sufficient if It rises above speculation or conjecture, and so affords the rational basis needed for a determination that the defendant was guilty of negligence which produced the accident. Shafer v. State, 171 Md. 506, 509 , 189 A. 273 . In Maas v. Sevick, 179 Md. 491,492 , 20 A. 2d 159 , a girl of five was struck by a truck passing along an alley in Baltimore 'City. As the opinion puts It: ‘Mo witness saw the truck strike the child, but she was injured, and a charge of negligent cause in the driving is based upon estimates of her position and th at of the truck just before and after the accident.’ The Court refused to permit the jury to pass on ¡the question of negligence and Judge Bond said: ‘To permit submission of a case to a jury for its finding, there must be evidence of the cause of action beyond conjecture and speculation, not as we think this testimony is, “of so slight and inconclusive a nature as to be wholly insufficient to be made the basis of a verdict”.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““This is not a case where the jury is entitled to decide between testimony given at the trial and testimony given at prior trial, or between present testimony and the truth of a prior conflicting statement. It is a ease, assuming, as we have, that the prior statements were in evidence at the trial, where the testimony of the witness from the stand is in hopeless conflict and without probative force.””
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.