Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 Md. 49 - Thomas v. State

Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Fabritz (1975), 27 Md. App. 361 - Cummings v. State (1975)

38 state decisions

801954196019701980199020002010decided

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 Edwards v. State · Lambert v. State · Duren v. State · Allison v. State · Hughes v. State

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““These cases have uniformly recognized that in order to constitute gross negligence, the conduct of the defendant must be such as to amount to a wanton or reckless disregard for human life or for the rights of others.” (emphasis supplied).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This rather full review of the evidence shows that there were only three factors from which gross negligence might be deduced: (1) excessive speed; (2) defective brakes; and (3) intoxication.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In this Court, the State seeks to establish negligence on the part of the appellant because he continued to operate the truck despite his knowledge that the brakes were defective____Even if the contention made by the State in this Court is open to it, we think the evidence is insufficient to support a charge of gross negligence against the appellant. He duly and promptly reported the unsatisfactory condition of the brakes to his superior after they had supposedly been repaired, and he was ordered to go on using the truck until it could be spared for further repairs. The defects in the brakes do not appear to have been so great or of such a nature as to indicate that the continued operation of the truck would amount to “wanton or reckless disregard for human life.””
    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.