Critzer v. Shegogue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 31 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a well-established rule that where relevant evidence which would properly be part of a case is within the control of the party whose interest it would naturally be to produce it, and he fails to do so, without satisfactory explanation, the jury may draw an inference that such evidence would be unfavorable to him. This rule is uniformly applied by the courts and is an integral part of our jurisprudence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 42 Md. App. 260 - Hitch v. Hall · 14 Md. App. 395 - Sun Cab Co. v. Carter

2. ““In De Gregorio v. United States, 7 F. 2d 295 (C. A. 2d; Rogers, Hough and Learned Hand, JJ.), the legality of two police officers’ entry was questioned. One only of the officers was called to testify, and the court refused to charge that the failure to call the other officer created an inference that his testimony would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. In upholding this ruling the Court stated: ‘The rule has been much misunderstood, and is often misapplied. It does not obtain when the uncalled witness is purely cumulative, and when he was not in a better position to know the facts than those who were called. . . Any other rule would require a party to call all eyewitnesses at the risk of having it presumed that those not called would contradict those who were. The rule has no such purpose; it rests on the notion that the suppression of more cogent evidence than that produced is some indication that it would be unfavorable.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 Md. App. 109 - Nelson v. State

3. ““qualifications and limitations. . . . However, we do not deem it desirable to attempt to set forth any precise rule with all of the exceptions thereto, for ... it is often necessary for the trial judge to take into account all of the attendant facts and circumstances bearing upon the situation presented before him. . . . However, when it is shown why the witness was not called upon to testify and the reasons for not calling him are reasonable and proper, no inference that his testimony would be unfavorable is permitted.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Md. App. 442 - Thomas v. Owens