Eberle v. Baltimore County’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 113 Md. App. 14 - Ahalt v. Montgomery County (1996), 119 Md. App. 181 - Maryland State Department of Education v. Shoop (1998)
32 state decisions
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 St. Leonard Shores Joint Venture v. Supervisor of Assessments · Baker v. Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System · Board of Trustees of the Employees' Retirement System v. Grandinetti · Courtney v. Board of Trustees · 86 Md. App. 642 - Hill v. Baltimore County
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court recently reiterated the standard for appellate review of administrative agency decisions in Hill v. Baltimore County, 86 Md.App. 642, 659 , 587 A.2d 1155 , cert. denied, 323 Md. 185 , 592 A.2d 178 (1991). When reviewing the factual findings of administrative agencies, it is the court’s duty to determine whether the agency’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Id. In applying this “substantial evidence” standard, the reviewing court must determine “whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have reached the factual conclusion that the agency reached. ” Id. (quoting St. Leonard Shores Joint Venture v. Supervisor of Assessments of Calvert County, 307 Md. 441 , 447, 514 A.2d 1215 (1986)). A court “must not engage in judicial fact-finding or substitute [its] judgment for that of the agency. ” Id. (citing St. Leonard Shores, 307 Md. at 447 , 514 A.2d 1215 ). Thus, we must examine the record to determine if there was substantial evidence from which a reasoning mind reasonably could have come to the factual conclusions reached by the Board of Appeals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No medical report indicated that Eberle’s disability was caused by his injuries at work. Neither did any report specifically conclude that Eberle would have suffered this disability in the absence of these injuries. Based on the medical reports that were riddled with references to a preexisting degenerative arthritis problem in addition to hypertension and a chronic overweight problem, it was not error for the Board of Appeals to conclude that Eberle’s disability was not the natural and proximate result of the accidental injuries he suffered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“has been totally and permanently incapacitated for duty as the natural and proximate result of an accident occurring while in the actual performance of duty at some definite time and place, without willful negligence on his part....”
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.