36 Md. App. 663 - Todd v. Weikle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 8 district · 26 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Use of records and reports as evidence (e) No part of any report or reports of the National Transportation Safety Board relating to any accident or the investigation thereof, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report or reports.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Indiana State Highway Commission v. Rickert · Benna v. Reeder Flying Service, Inc.

2. ““The trial court ruled that, notwithstanding the unequivocal language of the statute, the admission of factual material from a report is not error; only the opinion in the report as to possible causes of the accident, or as to negligence, must be excluded. We think the trial court was correct. From the decided cases, it is established that the above statute is to be narrowly construed. See Annot., 23 A.L. R.2d 1360 (1952). “Faced with a similar issue, the court in Berguido v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 317 F.2d 628 (3d Cir.1963) stated: ‘This argument [that the statute precluded certain factual testimony by an investigator] blurs the essential policy and reason behind the section with other policies affecting the admissibility of evidence. The fundamental policy underlying 1441(e) appears to be a compromise between the interests of those who would adopt a policy of absolute privilege in order to secure full and frank disclosure as to the probable cause and thus held prevent accidents and the countervailing policy of making available all accident information to litigants in a civil suit. Accordingly, the primary thrust of the provision is to exclude CAB reports which express agency views as to the probable cause of the accident.’ Id. at 631-632. Accord, American Airlines, Inc. v. United States, 418 F.2d 180, 196 (5th Cir. 1969). [Original emphasis] “As the court determined that the challenged testimony involved only factual matters and did not contain any opinions or conclusions”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Indiana State Highway Commission v. Rickert

3. ““In our review of the decided cases, we perceive two extreme positions. On the one hand, there is a line of authority which demonstrates for all practical purposes a judicial unwillingness to submit the issue of pilot identity to a jury based upon circumstantial evidence. [Citations omitted, including Hayden.] The other extreme is the Minnesota rule or the ‘pilot in command’ doctrine, as that term is defined in the Federal Air Regulations, which holds that the pilot in command is responsible for the negligent act, irrespective of whether or not he is in actual operation of the controls at the time of the fatal crash. [Citation omitted.] “In our judgment the proper approach to this question of pilot identity is the rule which applies generally in civil actions, that is, pilot identity must be proved by die plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence under die standard that die fact sought to be proved is more likely so dian not so. This is what we mean by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation omitted.] This rule is die same whedier the evidence bearing upon the question at issue is direct or circumstantial.” 36 Md. App. at 669-70 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Friesen-Hall v. Colle