Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 Md. 318 - State v. Gray

State v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
September 1978
most recently cited

17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Harper v. Higgs · Hance v. State Roads Commission · Miller v. Graff · Leizear v. Butler · Williams v. Dawidowicz

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

  1. ““Admission of such testimony was in the sound discretion of the trial court, Williams v. Dawidowicz, 209 Md. 77, 120 A. 2d 399 (1956), and we fail to find any abuse of that discretion in this case. The trooper, as investigating officer, qualified as an expert, Acme Poultry Corp. v. Melville, 188 Md. 365 , 53 A. 2d 1 (1947), and, as was said in Harper v. Higgs, 225 Md. 24, 38 , 169 A. 2d 661 (1961), '* * * an approved test as to the admissibility of expert opinion is whether the jury can receive appreciable help from the particular witness on the subject, not whether the jury can decide the particular issue without expert help. * * The interpretation of skid and swerve marks and gouges in the road at the site of the accident and their significance in regard to where the impact took place was a proper subject for expert testimony and the trial' court’s ruling in this respect was not erroneous. Cf. Miller v. Graff, 196 Md. 609 , 78 A. 2d 220 (1951).” ( 227 Md. at 321-22 , 176 A. 2d at 868-69 .) (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The circumstances in the case before us are similar in various respects to those in the cases which have refused to disturb a jury verdict for special damages only without allowance for pain and suffering, but whatever may be the rule elsewhere, we find it firmly established in Maryland that whether the claim be of excessiveness or inadequacy the action of the trial court in allowing or refusing a new trial will rarely, if ever, be reviewed on appeal.” Id. at 178 .”
    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.