194 Md. App. 431 - Lasater v. Guttmann’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
April 2021
most recently cited
14 district · 18 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Womack v. Eldridge · Harris v. Jones · Batson v. Shiflett · Faya v. Almaraz · Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Conversion is an intentional tort, consisting of two elements, a physical act combined with a certain state of mind. It is ... any distinct act of ownership or dominion exerted by one person [i.e. the defendant] over the personal property of another [i.e. the plaintiff] in denial of his [or her] right or inconsistent with it. The act of ownership for conversion can occur either by initially acquiring the property or by retaining it longer than the rightful possessor [i.e. the plaintiff] permits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; [and] (4) The emotional distress must be severe.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to act for the benefit of the [plaintiff] to the relation as to matters within the scope of the relation””
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.