71 Md. App. 273 - Smith v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2010
17 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 Impala Platinum Ltd. v. Impala Sales (U.S.A.), Inc. · Harrison v. Central Construction Co. · Corley v. Moore · Fieldhouse v. Public Health Trust · 36 Md. App. 26 - C. S. Bowen Co. v. Maryland National Bank
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here a motion for judgment and subsequent motion for judgment n.o.v. are filed by a party who bears the burden of proof on the issue, the court may only grant either motion when “the facts are uncontraverted (as opposed to merely uncontradicted) or the parties have agreed as to the facts and such facts and the circumstances surrounding them permit of only one inference with regard to any issue presented by the motion. See, Alexander v. Tingle, 181 Md. 464 , 30 A.2d 737 [1943] and Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stallings, 165 Md. 615 , 170 A. 163 [1934]. In the latter case, at 619 [ 170 A. 163 ], the Court said: “____Nor is it true that the court can say as a matter of law that one upon whom the burden rests has discharged that burden merely because testimony offered by him was not contradicted. To so hold would be to override the decisions in a long line of cases that the jury has the right to disbelieve a witness even when uncontradicted, [citing cases] In Harrison v. Central Construction Co., 135 Md. 170 at page 180, 108 A. 874, 878 [1919], it was said: ‘When the facts have been ascertained and agreed upon by the parties, or are undisputed, and there is no dispute as to the inferences to be drawn from the facts, the question becomes one of law and may be decided by the court.’ “This was said in a case where there was an agreed statement of facts. And it will be found, on examination of all the cases where like language is used there was no controversy about the facts, [citations”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In a jury trial, a party may move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict only if that party made a motion for judgment at the close of all the evidence and only on the grounds advanced in support of the earlier motion. [emphasis added]”
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.