Sanner v. Guard’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Liscombe v. Potomac Edison Co. (1985), Attorney Grievance Commission v. Kerpelman (1980)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 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 Hance v. State Roads Commission · State, Use of Taylor v. Barlly · Peregoy v. Western Maryland Railroad · Kantor v. Ash · Goldman v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant next complains that the court was in error in refusing to instruct the jury on the doctrine of last clear chance. This doctrine clearly had no application to the facts of this case. We have many times reiterated that the doctrine (which presupposes the existence of both primary and contributory negligence) has no application where the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is concurrent with the primary negligence of the defendant. In order for the doctrine to apply, there must be a showing of something new or sequential, which affords the defendant a fresh opportunity (of which he fails to avail himself) to avert the consequences of his original negligence. MacKenzie v. Reesey, 235 Md. 381 , 201 A. 2d 848 ; State, Use of Taylor v. Barlly, 216 Md. 94 , 140 A. 2d 173 ; Meldrum v. Kellam Distr. Co., 211 Md. 504 , 128 A. 2d 400 ; Peregoy v. Western Md. R. R. Co., 202 Md. 203 , 95 A. 2d 867 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Finally the appellant complains that he was prejudiced ... by the mention of the compensation carrier in the instructions when no evidence of the fact of payments or the amount thereof had been adduced at the trial. We find no merit in this contention. ... The court’s instruction to the jury merely explained that the Maryland Casualty Company was named as a party because Sanner, at the time of the accident, was an employee of Drummond and came under the workmen’s compensation law, which required that the compensation carrier be named as a party plaintiff. We find no error in the action or instructions of the trial judge. [ 236 Md. at 277-278 ].”
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.