118 Md. App. 418 - Chapman v. Kamara’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. the application for intervention must be timely; 2. the applicant must have an interest in the subject matter of the action; 3. the disposition of the action would at least potentially impair the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and 4. the applicant’s interests must be inadequately represented by the existing parties.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chapman v. Kamara · 143 Md. App. 606 - Simpson v. CONSOLIDATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

2. “[W]e can find nothing speculative about the interest asserted by WMATA. As of the time of the motion to intervene ... all the necessary events had occurred to give WMATA a real interest in the motion to vacate judgment. A final judgment had already been entered against the Estate in a negligence suit. The Estate had already sued WMATA for negligence in a related action, and WMATA had already moved for summary judgment based on the existence of the prior judgment. As Maryland is a contributory negligence jurisdiction, the summary judgment motion apparently asserted a complete defense. The Estate had already moved to vacate the prior judgment, and the Federal court had yet to rule on the merits of the summary judgment motion, perhaps waiting to see if the motion to vacate would succeed. It is hard to imagine what further preparatory step could be taken to make WMATA’s interest more palpable. The resolution of the motion to vacate would determine whether WMATA would have the opportunity to present this complete defense to suit. The fact that the Federal court may eventually deny the summary judgment motion does not render the interest speculative or moot the issue. Just as in [Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights, Inc. v. TKU Associates, 276 Md. 705 , 351 A.2d 133 (1976) ], WMATA had an interest in preventing the foreclosure of its opportunity to protect its legal interest in another forum.... We find that WMATA’s interest, therefore, was entirely sufficient, th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chapman v. Kamara

3. “We first make plain that we are not resolving the question that is currently before the United States District Court as to the preclusive effect of a judgment in a friendly suit brought for the sole purpose of binding a minor to a settlement agreement. While that very issue is, of course, the driving force of the instant dispute, we are limited to reviewing only the lower court’s orders, which did nothing more than permit intervention by WMATA and deny the motion to vacate judgment. Any opinion we could render regarding issue preclusion would not be binding upon the District Court and would therefore be entirely advisory in nature. E.g., Hammond v. Lancaster, 194 Md. 462 , 71 A.2d 474 (1950).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chapman v. Kamara