91 Md. App. 391 - Braxton v. Faber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) facts are set forth in reasonable detail sufficient to show the purported bias of the trial judge; (2) the facts in support of the claim must be made in presence of opposing counsel and the judge who is the subject of the charges; (3) counsel must not be ambivalent in setting forth his or her position regarding the charges; and (4) the relief sought must be stated with particularity and clarity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. Kirkpatrick · 127 Md. App. 536 - Reed v. Baltimore Life Insurance

2. “It is a time-honored rule of evidence that “in order to qualify as an expert, [one] should have such special knowledge of the subject on which he is to testify that he can give the jury assistance in solving a problem for which their equipment of average knowledge is inadequate.” Raitt v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, 274 Md. 489, 500 , 336 A.2d 90 , quoting Casualty Ins. Co. v. Messenger, 181 Md. 295, 291-99 , 29 A.2d 653 (1943); see generally, McLain, Maryland Evidence, § 702.1. Broad discretion is vested in the trial court with regard to expert testimony, and that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent an error of law or fact, a serious mistake, or a clear abuse of discretion. Radman v. Harold, 279 Md. 167, 170 , 367 A.2d 472 (1977). We further note that objections attacking an expert’s training, expertise or basis of knowledge go to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Lahocki v. Contee Sand & Gravel Co., 41 Md.App. 579, 600 , 398 A.2d 490 (1979), quoting Baltimore Transit Co. v. Smith, 252 Md. 430, 436 , 250 A.2d 228 (1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 112 Md. App. 75 - Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Flippo

3. “[W]e recognize that counsel is in a precarious position when he or she believes that the trial judge, by his actions, has caused harm to his or her client’s case. The dilemma is he or she must choose between, on the one hand, remaining mute and not protecting a client’s interest or, on the other hand, incurring the wrath of a trial judge in an effort to preserve a record on which the lower court’s actions may be reviewed. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon counsel to state with clarity the specific objection to the conduct of the proceedings and make known the relief sought.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 113 Md. App. 29 - Acquah v. State