80 Md. App. 387 - Beghtol v. Michael’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 state decisions

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

1. “[Ajppellant’s counsel did not ask for a continuing objection, nor did the court grant one sua sponte. The Court of Appeals has enunciated the rule that “[i]f the trial judge admits the questionable evidence, the party who made the motion [in limine] ordinarily must object at the time the evidence is actually offered to preserve his objection for appellate review.” Clearly, a motion in limine is not the equivalent of a continuing objection.... There is no equivalent to a continuing objection. Though specific objections to every question will preserve the issue for appellate review, they cannot be equated with continuing objections which were instituted precisely to avoid the interruptions of specific objections.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schreiber v. Cherry Hill Construction Co.

2. “[a]t the request of a party or on its own initiative, the court may grant a continuing objection to a line of questions by an . opposing party. For purposes of review by the trial court or on appeal, the continuing objection is effective only as to questions clearly within its scope.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schreiber v. Cherry Hill Construction Co.

3. “was eliminated by Rule 1-501 (effective January 1, 1989), which provides that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party. Thus, the need for court’s witnesses no longer exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 89 Md. App. 604 - Wright v. State