Shriner v. Mullhausen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 47 state decisions

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

1. ““The operator of a vehicle entering a paved public highway, which is hereby defined to be a highway having a hard, smooth surface, composed of gravel, shells, crushed stone, paving blocks, asphalt, concrete or other similar substance, from an unpaved public highway, or from a private road or drive, shall come to a full stop upon reaching the intersection, and yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on such paved public highway.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc. · Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc.

2. ““The wording in Sections 198 and 207, supra, the boulevard statutes, are practically identical with the wording in Section 199, supra. The many decisions of this Court construing the boulevard statute have become a part of that statute and will continue to be so until changed by the Legislature. Sonnenburg v. Monumental Tours, 198 Md. 227, 233 , 81 A. 2d 617 . Section 199, supra, was adopted by the Legislature by Chapter 1007, Section 179, of the Acts of 1943, approved May 6, 1943. The Legislature, when it passed that Act, must have known how this Court construed the boulevard statute in 1939 in Greenfeld v. Hook, 177 Md. 116 , 8 A. 2d 888 , 136 A.L.R. 1485 , and subsequent cases such as Pegelow v. Johnson, 177 Md. 345, 350, 351 , 9 A. 2d 645 ; Madge v. Fabrisio, 179 Md. 517, 520, 521 , 20 A. 2d 172 ; Rinehart v. Risling, 180 Md. 668, 674, 675 , 26 A. 2d 411 . * * * Therefore, we must give the same interpretation to Section 199, supra, as has been given by this Court to Sections 198 and 207, supra, the boulevard statutes.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zeamer v. Reeves

3. “And in other passages in that opinion the court recognized that the driver on the favored highway does not have an absolute right to proceed under all circumstances. See also the comment on this case in 4 Md. L.R. 207, 213. The recitals in Section 1 of Article 66 1/2 of the Code, as codified, would seem to negative any implication that the statute was designed to change the established law of negligence so as to relieve the favored driver of all duty to use care.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harper v. Higgs