Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 Md. App. 344 - Richards v. Goff

26 Md. App. 344 - Richards v. Goff’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
December 2009
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2009

16 state decisions

801975198019902000decided

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 Greenfeld v. Hook · Creaser v. Owens · Blinder v. Monaghan · Ness v. Males · Grue v. Schmidbauer

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

  1. ““The essential facts in the case at hand are almost identical with the factual situation in the Richards’ case, except that in this case the Plaintiff is a five-year old boy riding a tricycle whereas in the Richards’ case the Plaintiff was a seven-year, eight-months old boy riding a bicycle. “As in the Richards’ case, the basic uncontroverted facts in this case are that Timothy Taylor, on a tricycle, entered Pearl Street, a public street or highway, from a private driveway, and ran into an automobile operated by the Defendant, Mrs. Armiger, on the public highway. As to those facts reasonable minds could1 not differ. The tricycle upon which the Plaintiff was riding fits within the definition of a ‘vehicle’ as defined in Code, Article 66V2, Sec. 1-209. Therefore, the ‘boulevard law’ applies, and the Plaintiff, the unfavored driver, is barred from recovery against the Defendant, the favored driver. The Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict must therefore be granted and judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Defendant.””
    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.