Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 Md. App. 380 - Tumminello v. State

7 Md. App. 380 - Tumminello v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
December 1982
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1982

12 state decisions

90196919701980decided

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 Katz v. United States · McNabb v. United States · Berger v. New York · Desist v. United States · Lopez v. United States

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

  1. “‘ “Under the rule of res gestae, conversations of parties in the course of a transaction are admissible when the words are spontaneous and so closely related to the principal transaction as to explain its character. 1 Jones on Evidence, § 358; 6 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1776; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, §§ 662, 680; Such utterances, irrespective of their trustworthiness as assertions, are received as verbal parts of the entire act. In upholding this rule Justice Swayne said: ‘In the complexity of human affairs, what is done and what is said are often so related that neither can be detached without leaving the residue fragmentary and distorted. There may be fraud and falsehood as to both; but there is no ground of objection to one that does not exist equally as to the other. * '* * The tendency of recent adjudications is to extend rather than to narrow, the scope of the doctrine. Rightly guarded in its practical application, there is no principle in the law of evidence more safe in its results.’ Travellers’ Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 397, 408 , 19 L. Ed. 437, 411 .” ’ (Emphasis supplied.) 7 Md. App. at 383-85 ; 256 A. 2d at 344-45 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We think all of these excluded conversations were admissible under the familiar rule that they were offered for the purpose of establishing motive, intent, and to explain subsequent actions. In 6 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1789, Friend v. Hamill, 34 Md. 298 , 308 is quoted as follows: ‘Where the question is, whether a party has acted prudently, wisely, or in good faith, the information on which he acted, whether true or false, is original and material evidence and not mere hearsay. . . .’”
    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.