Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 34 Md. App. 571 - Walker v. Hall

34 Md. App. 571 - Walker v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
6
states following
January 2004
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently January 2004 · most notably Felder v. Butler (1981), Tidler v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988)

3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

1701977198019902000decided

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 Fowler v. Smith · State v. Hatfield · Alston v. Forsythe · Green v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission · Safeway Trails, Inc. v. Smith

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

  1. “Appellant overlooks the significance of Trooper Myrick's testimony that he smelled alcohol on Hall's breath yet concluded that "I didn't feel that he had enough to be charged with it... ." A similar issue was before the Court of Appeals in Alston v. Forsythe, 226 Md. 121 , 172 A.2d 474 (1961). In Alston , the court affirmed a judgment for the defendant despite the trial court's actions in not instructing the jury concerning the provisions of the predecessor section of Art. 66 1/2, § 11-902, under circumstances where the defendant had admitted to drinking two beers prior to the accident. The investigating officer in Alston , as in the instant case, noted the defendant's drinking yet failed to charge him with a violation. ( 369 A.2d at 114 )”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Stewart] encouraged Mr. Hill to race_ All you have really is some evidence of excessive speed or speed greater than the speed limit on the part of Mr. Stewart at certain points along the highway. I notice reference was constantly made to the fact that there was no occasion unless Mr. Stewart was engaged in racing for him to pass the other cars. Of course that, to me, is sort of a non sequitur.... Go out on the highway, any time you want, you see cars speeding up and going sixty to pass other ears; they’re not necessarily engaging in a race. ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is a well-settled rule, applicable in Maryland, that the racing of motor vehicles on a public highway is negligence. All who engage in a race are liable for injury sustained by a third person as a consequence of the race, irrespective of which racing car actually inflicted the injury or of the fact that the injured person was a passenger in one of the cars.”
    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.