75 Md. App. 49 - Kirkland v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
April 2007
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Edwards v. Arizona · Mutual Life Ins Co of New York v. Hillmon · New York v. Ferber · Clark v. Florida · Hillard v. State
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Professor John] McCormick states that “the probative value of a state of mind obviously may go beyond the state of mind itself.” ... Indeed, it may go so far as to prove subsequent conduct: Despite the failure until fairly recently to recognize the potential value of statements of state of mind to prove subsequent conduct, it is now clear that out-of-court statements which tend to prove a plan, design, or intention of the declarant are admissible, subject to the usual limitations as to remoteness in time and perhaps apparent sincerity common to all statements of mental state, to prove that the plan, design, or intention of the declarant was carried out by the declarant. ... The leading case for this proposition is Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon,.... In Hillmon , the matter chiefly contested was the death of the insured, John Hillmon. The resolution of that issue depended upon whether the body found at Crooked Creek, Kansas was Hillmon’s body or the body of his traveling companion Walters. The evidence sought to be admitted were letters written by Walters indicating his intention of traveling with Hillmon. The Court found these declarations of intent admissible to prove other matters which were in issue, e.g., whether Hillmon went to Crooked Creek and whether the dead body was his. Maryland is in accord with Hillmon . ... Simply stated, the Hillmon doctrine provides that when the performance of a particular act by an individual is an issue in the case, his intention (st”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Admissions are the ‘words or acts of a party-opponent, or of his predecessor or representative, offered as evidence against him.’ Admissions are considered to be substantive evidence of the facts admitted. A party may offer into evidence against his opponent anything said by him as long as it illustrates some inconsistency with the facts now asserted by the opponent in pleading or in testimony. Admissions do not have to be against the speaker’s interest when made.... [T]he speaker need not be, and rarely is, unavailable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“I was going to kill the M.F. if he didn’t have my money by a certain time.”
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.