Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 Md. App. 151 - McSlarrow v. Walker

56 Md. App. 151 - McSlarrow v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

6 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently November 2013 · most notably 87 Md. App. 699 - Owens-Illinois v. Armstrong (1991), Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1997)

6 district · 28 state decisions

2401983199020002010decided

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 Peterson v. Underwood · Fowler v. Smith · Sanders v. Williams · 11 Md. App. 83 - Buchanan v. Galliher · 13 Md. App. 16 - Miller v. Michalek

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

  1. “Contributory negligence as a matter of law requires a finding that the negligent act of the plaintiff ... relied upon must be prominent, decisive and one about which ordinary minds would not differ in declaring it to be negligence. Yockel v. Gerstadt, 154 Md. 188 , 140 A. 40 (1927). The standard of care to be used in measuring contributory negligence is the conduct of an ordinarily prudent person under similar circumstances; and even if the act done turns out to be an error of judgment, this alone does not make the act negligent if an ordinarily prudent person may have made the same error. Sanders v. Williams, 209 Md. 149 , 120 A.2d 397 (1955).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If there is any legally relevant and competent evidence, however slight, from which a rational mind could infer a fact in issue, then a trial court would be invading the province of the jury by declaring a directed verdict. In such circumstances, the case should be submitted to the jury and a motion for a directed verdict denied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Where a witness testified that he looked and listened, but did not see or hear a certain object, which, if he had actually looked and listened, he must necessarily have seen and heard, his testimony is not worthy of consideration."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.