Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 Md. App. 391 - Hughley v. McDermott

72 Md. App. 391 - Hughley v. McDermott’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
October 2005
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2005

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions

80198719902000decided

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 Butz v. Hein · Berkey v. Delia · Jacron Sales Co. v. Sindorf · Varney v. Lucerne-In-Maine Village Corp. · Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tyrrell

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

  1. “At the request of Lt. Pox I conducted an evaluation of POC David Hughley on September 22, 1983. As an outcome of this evaluation, a meeting was scheduled with you and Mr. Hughley on September 29, 1983. The purpose of these meetings was to determine if POC Hughley suffers a phobic reaction to horses which prevents him from receiving training in the Mounted Unit. It is my opinion based on the session with Officer Hughley and conversation with other officers that no such phobic reaction exists and the symptoms of anxiety (stomach cramps) are presentations of false and grossly exaggerated symptoms. The symptoms appear to be produced to avoid working in the Mounted Unit and specifically to avoid working under the command of Captain Klotz. In a word this is termed “malingering.” Most notable in the process of arriving at this diagnosis was POC Hughley’s lack of cooperation with the evaluation and prescribed treatment regimen. I will supply you with a full detailed explanation of these findings in the near future. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please feel free to call me.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[bjased on [Hughley’s] irascible mood, refusal to cooperate in any way to alleviate this situation at the Mounted Unit other than to be removed, the symptomatology occurring only when given an order, and his stated dislike of the Unit commander.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is not necessary that the other know that the matter to the publication of which he consents is defamatory in character. It is enough that he knows the exact language of the publication or that he has reason to know that it may be defamatory.”
    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.