42 Md. App. 260 - Hitch v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2010
4 district · 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 Brooks v. Daley · JACOBSON, T/A CHECKER CAB ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Julian · Lane v. Calvert · McBriety v. Phillips · Kantor v. Ash
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" We see no error in the cross-examination permitted, nor do we find any error in the court's refusal to permit appellant's counsel to present evidence of the existence of a conspiracy of silence. We do not understand counsel's complaint of a conspiracy of silence as... three local doctors were secured to testify as experts. We think the trial judge wisely exercised her discretion in refusing an in-depth interrogation of the alleged conspiracy of silence in view of the circumstances of this case."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The controlling requirement justifying the argument to the jury is that the available witness must be able to testify on a material issue, and that the testimony must be relevant and material, and not merely corroborative or cumulative. Jacobson v. Julian, 246 Md. 549 , 229 A.2d 108 (1967); Brooks v. Daley, 242 Md. 185 , 218 A.2d 184 (1966); Critzer v. Shegogue, 236 Md. 411 , 204 A.2d 180 (1964).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In a civil case it is well settled that failure of a party to produce an available witness who could testify on a material issue, if not explained, gives rise to an inference that the testimony would be unfavorable, and is a legitimate subject of comment by counsel in argument to 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.