Dynacorp Ltd. v. Aramtel Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
12 district · 15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An appellate court reviews a trial court’s factual findings for clear error, and reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo. See Md. R. 8-131 (c) (An appellate court “will not set aside the judgment of [a] trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”); Ramlall v. MobilePro Corp., 202 Md.App. 20 [ 30 A.3d 1003 ] (2011) (“The clearly erroneous standard does not apply to [a trial] court’s legal conclusions, however, to which [an appellate court] accord[s] no deference and which [the appellate court] review[s] to determine whether [or not] they are legally correct.”). The appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, City of Bowie v. MIE Props., Inc., 398 Md. 657, 676 [ 922 A.2d 509 ] (2007), and resolves all evidentiary conflicts in the prevailing party’s favor. First Union Nat’l Bank v. Steele Software Sys. Corp., 154 Md.App. 97 , 107 n. 1 [ 838 A.2d 404 ] (2003), cert, denied, 380 Md. 619 [ 846 A.2d 402 ] (2004).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an alleged breach of fiduciary duty may give rise to a cause of action [such as breach of contract], but it does not, standing alone, constitute a cause of action”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“inconsistent position-either legal or factual-in an earlier litigation[.]”
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.