Legal Opinion
Blankenship v. Wagner
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided February 9, 1971No. [No. 281, September Term, 1970.]PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFinan, J.
“The difficulties arising from the barrel of flour which rolled out of a warehouse window in 1863 and into the lives of tort lawyers,” 1 compounded by Baron Pollock’s casual statement (“res ipsa loquitur”) during argument of the case Byrne v. Boadle, 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (1863) are still with us today.
In the case sub judice the plaintiff (appellant) was somewhat intimidated by Judge Sobeloff’s comment in Hickory Transfer Co. v. Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 263, 96 A. 2d 241 (1953), that “Paradoxically, the plaintiffs proved too much and too little.” 2 Fearful of proving “too much” he called only the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Graham v. BadgerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Di Mare v. CresciCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Smith v. BernfeldCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1961
- Potts v. Armour & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
- Strasburger v. VogelCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1906
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Pahanish v. Western Trails, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Sun Cab Co. v. WalstonCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- Dover Elevator Co. v. SwannCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
- Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. HicksCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Armstrong v. Johnson Motor Lines, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1971
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.