Ace Development Co. v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
8 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Starfish Condominium Ass'n v. Yorkridge Service Corp. (1983), Bart Arconti & Sons, Inc. v. Ames-Ennis, Inc. (1975)
8 district · 31 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 Edison Realty Co. v. Bauernschub · Purdum v. Edwards · Llewellyn v. Queen City Dairy, Inc. · Warren v. Fitzgerald · Laurel Realty Co. v. Himelfarb
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In such a case not only is the corporation liable for such action, but the agents who engage in the conspiracy are personally liable for damages resulting from such a transaction. Agents of a corporation ... cannot hide behind the corporate shield and say they were acting solely as the agents of the corporation.” Ace Development Co. v. Harrison, 196 Md. 357, 367 , 76 A. 2d 566 (1950).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““if they use a corporation for the deliberate purpose of making a contract for it, when at the time they intend to defraud a party thereto, and the contract is merely an avenue on which the fraud operates, * * * [and that] the burden of proof is on the one charging fraud to establish by clear, specific acts, facts that in law constitute fraud.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Damazo v. Wahby
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.