May v. Warnick’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Police Commissioner v. Dowling (1977), Smith v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co. (1973)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 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 Height v. State · Hopper, McGaw & Co. v. Kelly · Reed v. President of North East · Minugh v. Royal Crown Bottling Co. · Vogelsang v. Sehlhorst
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There can be little doubt that one of the primary reasons for prohibiting an overtaking vehicle from going to the left side of the road in passing another at, or within a specified distance from, an intersection is that the front car may be anticipating a left turn. 3 Berry, Automobiles (7th Ed.), § 3.42; Cierley v. Uhalt, 10 P. 2d 769 (1932) (Cal.); 3 Blashfield, Cyc., Automobile Law & Practice, § 965. If the present provisions of the law are complied with, there is little danger from this source: the motorist contemplating a left turn is required to approach the intersection (where two-way traffic is being accommodated on both streets) in that portion of the right half of the roadway nearest the center line thereof (giving an appropriate signal, in accordance with Sections 228, 229 and 230), but he is prohibited from passing to the left of the center until the intersection is reached, Section 225 (b); and the following motorist is forbidden to pass the lead vehicle on the left of the roadway, Section 221 (b) (2). “This prohibition in Section 221 against overtaking and passing ‘to the left side of the roadway * * * when approaching within 100 feet of or traversing any intersection,’ when applied to two-way highways, eliminates much of the danger of a collision that would be involved if the overtaking vehicle were permitted to pass on the left, or wrong, side of the road at or near the intersection.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Iager v. Rogers““It is well-established law that in construing legislative enactments, all statutes relating to the same subject matter are to be considered and harmonized as far as possible. And this rule applies when the statutes were passed at different dates, separated by long or short intervals. The statutes are to be compared and brought into full accord if possible, but if they are insusceptible of a construction which will permit all their provisions to fall into complete agreement, they are to be made to operate together as far as possible, consistent with the evident intent of the latest enactment. Balto. Credit Union v. Thorne, 214 Md. 200 , 134 A. 2d 84 [(1957)]. Cf. Reed v. President & Com’rs of the Town of North East, 226 Md. 229 , 172 A. 2d 536 [(1961)]; Height v. State, 225 Md. 251 , 170 A. 2d 212 [(1961)]; Phillips v. Comptroller, 224 Md. 350 , 167 A. 2d 913 [(1961)].””
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.