Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 6 district · 38 state decisions

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]here the plaintiff alleges negligence by a professional, expert testimony is generally necessary to establish the requisite standard of care owed by the professional. The rule, derived to a large degree from medical malpractice cases, is that experts are usually necessary to explain professional standards because such standards require specialized knowledge within the professional’s field that are generally beyond the ken of the average layman. If the plaintiff presents no expert when one is needed, then the trial court may rule, in its general power to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence, that there is not sufficient evidence to go [to] the jury. We have emphasized, though, that experts are not needed when the alleged negligence is so obvious that the trier of fact could easily recognize that such actions would violate the applicable standard of care. If a jury can use its common knowledge or experience to recognize a breach of a duty, then expert testimony is unnecessary to calibrate the exact standard of care owed by the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 229 Md. App. 601 - Roman v. Sage Title Group, LLC · 239 Md. App. 571 - Sewell v. State

2. “[T]he public duty doctrine does not apply if law enforcement is not engaged in protecting the public from an injurious force caused by a member of the public, but rather is itself the alleged injurious force. [Jones’s] claim ... alleges harm from the State’s negligent training of [the deputies] in what were alleged to be unconstitutional arrest procedures. The public duty doctrine does not foreclose liability on that claim.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clark v. Prince George's County · Bassett v. Lamantia

3. ““whether on the evidence adduced, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, any reasonable trier of fact could find the elements of the [claim] by a preponderance of the evidence. If there is even a slight amount of evidence that would support a finding by the trier of fact in favor of the [non-movant], the motion for judgment should be denied.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 219 Md. App. 531 - Francis v. Johnson