Hughes v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The appellant cites Ager v. Baltimore, 213 Md. 414, 421 [ 132 A.2d 469 (1957) ], for the proposition that the jury may not be permitted to “form a judgment or conclusion on the basis of testimony which admits of mere possibilities.” But in Charlton Bros. v. Garrettson, 188 Md. 85, 94 [ 51 A.2d 642 (1947) ], Judge Markell, for the Court, said: “The law requires proof of probable, not merely possible, facts, including causal relations. Reasoning post hoc, propter hoc is a recognized logical fallacy, a non sequitur. But sequence of events, plus proof of possible causal relation, may amount to proof of probable causal relation, in the absence of evidence of any other equally probable cause” (citing cases). See also Wilhelm v. State Traffic [Safety ] Comm., 230 Md. 91, 103 [ 185 A.2d 715 (1962) ] and cases cited, including Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc. v. Scherpenisse, 187 Md. 375 [ 50 A.2d 256 (1946) ], and Baltimore City Pass. Ry. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74 , 61 Md. 619 . We think there was sufficient evidence of a causal connection in the instant case to warrant submission of the question to the jury.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller v. State · 131 Md. App. 342 - Jacobs v. Flynn