172 Md. App. 29 - Cotillo v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Whether the Court of Special Appeals’ Opinion is inconsistent with well-established Maryland law on assumption of risk and that doctrine's independence from a defendant’s alleged negligence. 2. Whether the Court of Special Appeals failed to consider (a) the video footage of the event; and (b) the Circuit Court’s determination that no causation exists because reasonable persons could not differ in concluding that the speed at which the 530 lbs. bar came crashing down made prevention of the injuries impossible by human spotters. 3. Whether the Court of Special Appeals’ Opinion, from a public policy standpoint, jeopardizes the existence of sports programs and other extracurricular activities in the State, including those funded and operated by public and independent schools.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. American Powerlifting Ass'n v. Cotillo

2. “In light of the holding that Christopher Cotillo (“Cotillo”) assumed the risk as a matter of law of being injured by the bar during a lift, assumed the risk as a matter of law that the spotters would fail to protect him in the event of a failed lift and assumed the risk as a matter of law that the spotters would be negligently positioned, did the Trial Court err in finding that Cotillo's claims for negligent instruction of the spotters were barred?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. American Powerlifting Ass'n v. Cotillo