129 Md. App. 490 - Geduldig v. Posner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e conclude that the Court of Appeals would recognize the tort if it were necessary to afford complete, but traditional, relief. In the case before us, no reason is given as to why recognition of the tort is necessary other than that damages are sought which are not otherwise available, specifically, damages for emotional distress, harm to reputation, and punitive damages. We decline to recognize the tort where the sole reason is an expansion of traditional remedies, as opposed to a situation, not before us, where the traditional remedy might be insufficient to correct the pecuniary loss.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. Fritschy

2. “(1) the existence of an expectancy; (2) a reasonable certainty that the expectancy would have been realized, but for the interference; (3) intentional interference with that expectancy; (4) tortious conduct involved with interference, such as fraud, duress, or undue influence; and (5) damages.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ingersoll v. Ingersoll

3. “One who by fraud, duress or other tortious means intentionally prevents another from receiving from a third person an inheritance or gift that he would otherwise have received is subject to liability to the other for loss of the inheritance or gift.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ingersoll v. Ingersoll