125 Md. App. 454 - Owens Corning v. Bauman’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
4 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Heron v. Strader (2000), 159 Md. App. 123 - CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Miller (2004)
4 district · 38 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
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · Frye v. United States · Urie v. Thompson · Zerman v. Melton
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In sum, mere exposure, without cellular change, does not constitute an injury or harm for which one may maintain a cause of action. Furthermore, cellular change without accompanying injury does not constitute harm or functional impairment that would give rise to a cause of action. For purposes of the statutory cap, the crucial distinction is whether a plaintiffs cellular change develops into an asbestos-related disease or simply into an asbestos-related condition. When cellular change later results in an asbestos-related disease, the harm was irreversible from the time of contraction, and the ‘injury’ as well as the cause of action arose when the disease came into existence. Consequently, the presence or absence of symptomatology is irrelevant for purposes of the statutory cap, because the cause of action arose when the disease was contracted. On the other hand, when a plaintiff becomes afflicted with an asbestos-related condition, such as pleural plaques, it is not until symptoma-tology is present that any functional impairment occurs.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]lternatively, matters of public policy in the judicial arena are relegated to Maryland's highest court-the Court of Appeals ... [u]ntil or unless either avenue of redress available to appellant ... is pursued, it is not within our purview ... to overrule a decision of the Court of Appeals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“arises,” the court applied the rule of statutory construction that would give that term its ordinary meaning, found that a cause of action “arises when it first comes into existence,” and therefore determined that the suhclinical harm to the cells and tissues of the lungs caused by the disease asbestosis during its lengthy latency period was sufficient to establish that a cause of action had “arisen” within the meaning of the statute's language. ... Here, in contrast, Civil Code section 1431.2, enacted by Proposition 51, contains no similar controlling language. Buttram, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 438 , 941 P.2d at 82 (citations omitted; emphasis added). Bauman, 125 Md.App. at 473 , 726 A.2d 745 . The Buttram court, we said in Bauman , had distinguished the decision of the Court of Appeals in Armstrong II on the basis that the Armstrong II court had not considered "analogous policy considerations and purposes to be served in adopting an accrual rule that determines the applicability of a ... statutes such as Proposition 51.”
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.