Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 Md. 137 - Peisner v. State

Peisner v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
2
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Tichnell v. State (1980), Hunt v. State (1990)

69 state decisions

2101964197019801990200020102020decided

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 Drews v. Maryland · Machibroda v. United States · Basoff v. State · Wood v. State · MacEwen 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Assuming arguendo that the appellant’s objections were well taken, and that evidence was erroneously admitted, the question then becomes whether the error was rendered harmless ... Over objection Mr. Docter was allowed to testify that Symonds said that he, Symonds, Lifshutz and Peisner agreed to take money whenever it was available. Thereafter he testified, without objection, that Peisner admitted the same thing. We conclude that evidence to the same effect as that given by Mr. Docter, which was objected to by the appellant, was clearly shown by other competent testimony, including that of the appellant himself, and that the error, if any, in admitting Mr. Docter’s testimony was thus rendered harmless.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When testimony has been admitted and an exception noted, counsel may deem it necessary to cross-examine the witness on the subject, and if it is simply a cross-examination he ought not to be deprived of his exception, provided the record shows he does not intend thereby to waive it, and that ought to be inferred when it is strictly cross-examination.”
    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.