40 Md. App. 524 - Meyer v. McDonnell’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably 64 Md. App. 202 - Miller v. Montgomery County (1985), 88 Md. App. 59 - DiLeo v. Nugent (1991)
2 district · 26 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 Blasius v. United States · 172 Cal. App. 2d 756 - Agnew v. Parks · Newark Stereotypers' Union No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co. · L'Orange v. Medical Protective Co. · Maszczenski v. Myers
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“admissible as tending to show his consciousness of the weakness of his case and a belief that his defense would not prevail without the aid of such improper and unfair tactics as those in which he engaged. This, in conjunction with the other evidence in the case, may lead to the further inference that appellee considers his case to be weak because he, in fact, is guilty of the negligence which appellant asserts he committed. Such inferences are, of course, merely permissible and the jury is free to either accept or reject them as it sees fit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCool v. Gehret · Cain v. Back“[W]rongdoing by the party in connection with its case ... is also commonly regarded as an admission by conduct. By resorting to wrongful devices, the party is said to provide a basis for believing that he or she thinks the case is weak and not to be won by fair means_ Accordingly, the following are considered under the general category of admissions by conduct ... undue pressure by bribery, intimidation, or other means to influence a witness to testify favorably or to avoid testifying; ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“directed his secretary to call Dr. Robert P. Keyser, of Miami, Florida, an acquaintance and a fellow member of the American Scoliosis Society, and tell him that Dr. Robert B. Nystrom was scheduled to testify against appellee and that his testimony would be transcribed and disseminated to Dr. Nystrom's local medical society in Miami and to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. The secretary immediately carried out such a call,____then requested that Dr. Keyser [call] before Dr. Nystrom testified, and gave him the phone numbers of both trial counsels and the trial judge. Just before noon on that same day, Dr. Keyser telephoned Dr. Nystrom, who was in the City Bar Library awaiting commencement of his testimony. Dr. Keyser, who was a mentor of Dr. Nystrom and a man whom Dr. Nystrom admired and respected, related the information about dissemination of testimony, and, with the preface that "this is not a threat, but,” admonished him to tread lightly.... Dr. Nystrom was intimidated by the communication and felt that he would be unable to testify with a normal degree of candor.”
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.