205 Md. App. 1 - Hendrix v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
July 2017
most recently cited
15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Faya v. Almaraz · O'CONNOR v. Baltimore County · Gladden v. State · Walk v. Hartford Casualty Insurance · Vance v. Vance
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is universally understood that some form of intent is required for battery____It is also clear, however, that the intent required is not a specific intent to cause the type of harm that occurred.” Nelson, 355 Md. at 601-02 , 735 A.2d 1096 (footnote omitted). The Nelson Court further explained: “The intent element of battery requires not a specific desire to bring about a certain result, but rather a general intent to unlawfully invade another’s physical well-being through a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension of such a contact.” Id. at 602-03 , 735 A.2d 1096 . See also MPJI-Cv 15:2 (stating, in part, that “battery is the intentional touching of a person without that person’s consent”). In addition, lesser states of mind — such as recklessness or wantonness — do not equate to the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. “Reckless, wanton or willful misconduct differs from intentional wrongdoing.” Johnson v. Mountaire Farms of Delmarva, Inc., 305 Md. 246, 253 , 503 A.2d 708 (1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.”
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.