53 Md. App. 553 - Sherrard v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 22 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Those cases which would hold the privilege to be qualified generally predate Noerr-Pennington[ 11 ] or are distinguishable in that they do not relate to the direct petitioning of a legislative body. In light of the evolution of the petitioning doctrine, we therefore find them to be unpersuasive. The modern, better reasoned cases hold that true petitioning activity should be absolutely privileged. “There is a common thread which runs through the fabric of absolute defamation immunity as applied in Maryland. The judge and jury in the trial and the senator, delegate and councilperson in the legislative proceeding have a common need to receive as much information as is available in order to render a proper and informed decision.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Reichardt v. Flynn

2. ““In weighing the public interest in free disclosure through petitioning to a legislative body against the potential harm to individuals who may be defamed, we by necessity circumscribe the meaning of ‘petitioning’ insofar as it might give rise to an absolute defamation privilege. Inherent in the words ‘petitioning for redress of grievances’ is the concept that the words contained in the petition will relate to the redress sought and that the petitioner is genuinely seeking redress. If irrelevant or a sham, the comments of the speaker may never be classified as petitioning. What is relevant or what constitutes a sham must be decided on a case-by-case basis.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 57 Md. App. 609 - Bass v. Rohr

3. “"in order for a democratic government to govern democratically, it is necessary that an atmosphere be created whereby facts may be freely presented to the governing legislative body. Without such a free-speaking environment, individuals might be discouraged from addressing their government." An individual must feel unrestrained by potential defamation liability when addressing the legislature. Only then can the lawmaking process be fully informed and operate with maximum effectiveness.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Riddle v. Perry