126 Md. App. 609 - Crews v. Hollenbach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Mr. Crews] was an expert gas repair technician, and he was sent to the property where the gas leak had occurred for the specific purpose of inspecting and addressing the problem. That was his job. That he knew what he was doing and appreciated the risks associated with doing his job is clear in this case. And that he specifically assumed the risk of his job is also clear ... Accordingly, I see no issue with respect to Mr. Crews going to this jury ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crews v. Hollenbach

2. “[Mr. Crews] ‘accepted] that responsibility when ... [he] first got hired.’ Clearly, there was a direct causal relationship between the performance of [Mr. Crews’] duties as a gas leak repairman and the cause of his injuries. Because [he] knew that his occupation carried with it certain risks, he may not now be heard to complain when one of those job-related foreseeable risks materialized.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Crews v. Hollenbach

3. “the same material from the record and decide[ ] the same legal issues as the circuit court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 140 Md. App. 101 - Mitchell v. AARP LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM