39 Md. App. 82 - Fields v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2012
10 state decisions
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 Strasburger v. Vogel · Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed · 25 Md. App. 503 - Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Hicks · Giant Food, Inc. v. Washington Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · Short v. Wells
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. A casualty of a sort which usually does not occur in the absence of negligence. 2. Caused by an instrumentality within the defendant’s exclusive control. 3. Under circumstances indicating that the casualty did not result from the act or omission of the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Although the plaintiff disavowed any reliance on res ipsa loquitur in Bavis the case is still controlling. The plaintiff's case was based on circumstantial evidence and res ipsa loquitur is nothing more than a label that is attached to certain situations where the mere occurrence of an accident furnishes enough circumstantial evidence to allow a jury to draw an inference of negligence. See Short v. Wells, [ 249 Md. 491 , 240 A.2d 224 (1968).]"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There was direct evidence that [the driver and appellant] were fighting over the steering wheel at the time of the accident but there was also direct evidence that [appellant] was unconscious and could not have engaged in a fight. Under these circumstances, the trial judge should not have granted the motion for a directed verdict as the resolution of the conflicting testimony was for the jury.”
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.