42 Md. App. 291 - Kelch v. Mass Transit Administration’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2008 · most notably 93 Md. App. 168 - Fraidin v. Weitzman (1992), Kelch v. Mass Transit Administration (1980)
2 district · 30 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 Hickman v. Taylor · White v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad · Southern Railway Company v. Carl Talmadge Lanham · Bryant v. State · Casey v. Roman Catholic Archbishop
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Leizear , the Court of Appeals noted with approval that the evidence of collateral payments is admissible if there is evidence in the case of malingering or exaggeration of injury but evidence as to collateral payments is inadmissible in the absence of evidence of malingering or exaggeration or where the real purpose of the evidence offered as to collateral sources is the mitigation of liability for damages of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[t]he decision to grant or to deny a mistrial rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, and in the absence of proof of abuse of that discretion his decision will not be disturbed on appeal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In the event the motion respondent answers that it has no knowledge as to the existence of such demanded item, or that, while it knows of the item’s existence, it is neither within its possession nor control, the burden is on the demanding party to factually show to the contrary by a preponderance of the evidence; (b) if the responding party, however, while acknowledging either possession or control of the demanded item, says it is not discoverable by virtue of Rule 400 d’s exception provision that the item was "prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial” (or for any other proper reason), the burden is upon the responding party to substantiate its non-discovery assertion by a preponderance of the evidence; and (c) if, on the other hand, the demanding party, while recognizing that the requested item was "prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial” by his adversary, claims discovery under the exception authorized in Rule 400 d (i) (ii) and (iii) the burden of so establishing by a preponderance of the evidence rests on the exception claimant.”
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.