Irvine v. Montgomery County’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably Town of Somerset v. Montgomery County Board of Appeals (1966), 86 Wash. 2d 607 - Haslund v. City of Seattle (1976)
49 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 Lipsitz v. Parr · Cox v. Board of County Commissioners · Taylor v. Mayor of Baltimore · Walters v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Mayor of Baltimore v. Fairfield Improvement 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is clear that when the Legislature delegates the police power with respect to the public health to a political subdivision, its governing body to the extent of the grant is invested with the sovereign power of the State; and when it acts, or fails to act, under that power, it does so in a governmental capacity____ It is equally clear that in Maryland, as in almost all common law jurisdictions, there can be no recovery against a municipal corporation for injuries occasioned by its negligence or nonfeasance in the exercise of functions essentially governmental in character.... The appellants attempt to escape the effects of governmental immunity by arguing that wilful or negligent failure to prevent or abate a public nuisance is an exception to the usual rule. The cases make it clear, however, that the exception has been recognized and applied (on the theory that the political subdivision is acting in a proprietary or municipal capacity and not as the agent of the State) only where the nuisance has relation to public rights of way or other property owned or maintained by the municipality____ It is apparent from the declaration that the claimed public nuisance was not on a highway or on municipally owned land.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““An actionable wrong may arise under some circumstances if a private nuisance is created as a result of grading and other building ac tivities which accelerate the natural flow of water and damage an adjoining property. Battisto v. Perkins, 210 Md. 542 , 124 A. 2d 288 (1956). However, in issuing permits for construction, a municipality is only exercising its governmental authority and is immune from action against it. Lipsitz v. Parr, 164 Md. 222, 227 , 164 Atl. 743 (1933); 18 McQuillin, Municipal Corp., 3d ed. § 53.37; 25 Am. Jur. Highways, §§ 356 and 592. Even though the permits were for street construction, the municipal corporation is immune from liability for error of judgment, unaffected by negligence. Cumberland v. Turney, 177 Md. 297, 314 , 9 A. 2d 561 (1939). Here, the bill of complaint does not allege any acts of negligence on the part of the County in approving the plan of subdivision, or any failure of the plan, in respect of streets, to conform to the specifications of the county code.” Id. at 117-18.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Compliance with procedural regulations is essential to the fair and efficient administration of justice, but it is the substance of compliance and the fair treatment of the parties, which are determinative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.