Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 212 MDAPP 237 - Burns v. Bechtel Corp.

Burns v. Bechtel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

2 district · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Idaho v. Wright · Idaho v. Wright · Kelley v. R.G. Industries, Inc. · Rose v. Fox Pool Corp. · First United Methodist Church of Hyattsville v. United States Gypsum Co.

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “CHAPTER 666 (Senate Bill 241) AN ACT to add new Section 20 to Article 57 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1968 Replacement Volume), title “Limitations of Actions,” to follow immediately after Section 19 thereof, to prohibit the bringing of actions based on injuries arising out of defective conditions of improvements to real property against certain persons after a specified period of time and providing that the provision of the Act shall not apply to actions accruing prior to its effective date. Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Maryland, That new Section 20 be and it is hereby added to Article 57 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1968 Replacement Volume), title “Limitations of Actions,” to follow immediately after Section 19 thereof, and to read as follows: 20. No action to recover damages for injury to property real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages incurred as a result of said injury or death, shall be brought more than nine TWENTY years after the said improvement was substantially completed. This limitation shall not apply to any action brought against the person who, at the time the injury was sustained, was in actual possession and control as owner, tenant, or otherwise of the said improvement. For purposes of this section, “substantially completed” shall mean when the entire improvement is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “This section does not apply if: (i) the defendant was in actual possession and control of the property as owner, tenant, or otherwise when the injury occurred[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] cause of action for an injury described in this section accrues when the injury or damage occurs.”
    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.