Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 Md. 81 - Ensor v. Ortman

Ensor v. Ortman’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
October 1986
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 1986 · most notably Menish v. Polinger Company (1976), 61 Md. App. 670 - Schear v. Motel Management Corp. of America (1985)

27 state decisions

140196619701980decided

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 Brown v. Ellis · Grue v. Schmidbauer · Thompson v. Clemens · Farley v. Yerman · McKenzie v. Egge

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. ““Had there been testimony here that had Mrs. Ensor looked, she would have seen, for instance, a missing board in the porch’s flooring and that when she stepped out she stepped into the hiatus caused thereby, then this would plainly bring the plaintiff’s conduct within the last cited holding. [Eyler v. Adolph Beauty System, 238 Md. 227 , 208 A. 2d 609 (1965)].” Id. at 91.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““They could properly have found that she knew that the porch was defective but did not know, nor would a person of reasonable prudence know, under the circumstances then existing, that the boards were likely to give way when she walked on them in pursuance of her normal household duties. ” 243 Md. at 89-90 , 220 A. 2d at 87 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““If the defendant’s negligence has made the plaintiff’s exercise of a right or privilege impossible unless he exposes himself to a risk of bodily harm, the plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence in doing so unless he acts unreasonably.””
    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.