Witte v. Azarian’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 153 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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the true legislative intent cannot readily be determined from the statutory language alone ... we may, and often must, resort to other recognized indicia — among other things, the structure of the statute, including its title; how the statute relates to other laws; the legislative history, including the derivation of the statute, comments and explanations regarding it by authoritative sources during the legislative process, and amendments proposed or added to it; the general purpose behind the statute; and the relative rationality and legal effect of various competing constructions.”

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 17 - Ibru v. Ibru · Walzer v. Osborne

2. “[A] claim filed after July 1, 1986, shall be dismissed if, within 90 days after the date of the complaint, the claimant failed to file with the HCAO a certificate of a "qualified expert” attesting to a departure from the standards of care, and that, if the claimant filed such a certificate and the defendant disputed liability, the claim shall be adjudicated in favor of the claimant on the issue of liability unless, within 120 days after the filing of the claimant's expert’s certificate, tlie defendant filed a certificate of a “qualified expert” attesting to compliance with the standards of care. The bill, as introduced, copied the Task Force’s recommendation that "the attesting expert may not devote annually more than 50 percent of the expert's income from testimony and other activity related to personal injury claims.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mayo-Parks v. United States · Carroll v. Konits

3. “It seems abundantly clear to us that an activity cannot “directly involve testimony” unless there is, in fact testimony — “[ejvidence that a competent witness under oath or affirmation gives at trial or in an affidavit or deposition.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1485 (7th ed.1999). Even when the expert is called upon to testify, however, not everything that he or she does in the matter can be said to “directly involve” that testimony. We reject as factually unsupportable the notion that every medical examination conducted by a doctor upon referral by an attorney or insurance carrier directly involves testimony that may ultimately be given by the doctor.... A more reasonable approach, we think, is to regard the statute as including only (1) the time the doctor spends in, or traveling to or from, court or deposition for the purpose of testifying, waiting to testify, or observing events in preparation for testifying, (2) the time spent assisting an attorney or other member of a litigation team in developing or responding to interrogatories and other forms of discovery, (3) the tim,e spent in reviewing notes and other materials, preparing reports, and conferring with attorneys, in surance adjusters, other members of a litigation team, the patient, or others after being informed that the doctor will likely be called upon to sign an affidavit or otherwise testify, and (if) the time spent on any similar activity that has a clear and direct relationship to testimony to be given by the doc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Md. App. 217 - Waldt v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.