135 Md. App. 693 - McCoy v. Hatmaker’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably 140 Md. App. 282 - Baltimore Police Department v. Cherkes (2001), 139 Md. App. 609 - Beyer v. Morgan State University (2001)
3 federal appellate · 8 district · 18 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 King v. Bankerd · Hajmm Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc. · COLOMIRIS v. Woods · Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership · DiPino v. Davis
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even if appellant could have proven gross negligence, Officer Schwaab, as a law enforcement official, also qualifies for public official immunity under the rule of DiPino v. Davis, 354 Md. 18, 48-49 , 729 A.2d 354 (1999). Such immunity is hard to defeat. Under the rule of DiPino , the court must find that two factors exist simultaneously before it can relieve a governmental official of liability for his negligent acts. First, the actor whose conduct is at issue must be a public official rather than a mere government employee or agent. Second, the tortious conduct must have occurred while he was performing discretionary rather than ministerial acts in furtherance of his official duties. If the official can establish those two factors, he receives qualified immunity, that is, immunity in the absence of malice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) Immunity from civil liability.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except for any willful or grossly negligent act, a fire company or rescue company, and the personnel of a fire company or rescue company, are immune from civil liability for any act or omission in the course of performing their duties.”
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.