Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 Md. App. 392 - Cooper v. State

41 Md. App. 392 - Cooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2012

10 state decisions

4019791980199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1732

Relies on Andresen v. Maryland · Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc. · 24 Md. App. 128 - Andresen v. State · Henson v. State · Forrester v. State

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 vast chasm of time and technological advance separates the world of manual copying, in which the rule was born, from the world of highly sophisticated, mechanical reproduction today. McCormick, § 236, “Mechanical Reproductions,” at 567, described that earlier world, out of which the rule of preference grew: “The treatment of copies under the rule requiring the production of the original document can only properly be understood when viewed in light of the technological history of copying itself. In its earliest stages, the rule appears to have developed against a background of copying performed by individuals of the Bob Cratchit sort, transcribing manually not always under the best of conditions. Errors under such circumstances were routinely to be expected.” Professor Irving Younger vividly describes the human frailty of a copier, as a Bob Cratchit, fingers numbed by the cold in the counting house and fraught with anxiety over the health of Tiny Tim, might distractedly misplace a decimal point, invert a pair of digits or drop a line. A Xerox machine, by way of contrast, does not worry about Tiny Tim and, does not, therefore, misplace decimal points, invert digits, drop lines, or suffer any of the other mental lapses that flesh is heir to.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Best Evidence Rule states a preference for original documents, but does not foreclose use of secondary evidence “after a proper foundation has been laid, showing good and sufficient reasons for the failure to produce the primary evidence.” Forrester v. State, 224 Md. 337, 349 , 167 A.2d 878, 884 (1961). The issue usually arises when the original document has been lost or destroyed.”
    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.