21 Md. App. 45 - Myers v. Aragona’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 23 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]hen a person either orally, in writing, or by his conduct represents himself, or consents to have another represent him as a partner in an existing partnership with one or more persons, "he is liable to any such person to whom any such representation has been made, who has, on the faith of such representation, given credit to the actual or apparent partnership." The gist of both the original action and the amended one was the liability of Myers for the misappropriation, by his partner, of funds entrusted to the partnership. Even if no actual partnership existed between Gordon and Myers, Myers is nonetheless, by virtue of his using or allowing the use of the name "Gordon & Myers, Attorneys at Law" on the "Settlement Statements]" and "Law Offices Gordon & Myers" on letterheads estopped from denying the existence of the partnership. Md. Ann. Code art. 73A, § 16. He may not now be heard to say that he was not, in fact, a partner, but that he and Gordon merely had a "relationship." In the eyes of the law, that "relationship" is as much a partnership, insofar as third parties are concerned, as if there had been formal Articles of Partnership subscribed to by both Myers and Gordon. Id. at 268-269.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stewart v. Delaney

2. ““The rule is that if an amendment sets forth a new cause of action, then limitations is measured from the time of the accrual of the cause to the date the amended declaration is filed, but if the amendment does not state a new cause of action, then limitations is determined with reference to the date of the original filing. Doughty v. Prettyman, 219 Md. 83 , 148 A. 2d 438 (1959); Cline v. Fountain, Etc., Company, 214 Md. 251 , 134 A. 2d 304 (1957).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 37 Md. App. 538 - Gensler v. Korb Roofers, Inc.

3. “on letterheads estopped from denying the existence of the partnership. Md. Ann. Code art. 73A, § 16. He may not now be heard to say that he was not, in fact, a partner, but that he and Gordon merely had a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stewart v. Delaney