Klein v. Weiss’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 14 district · 147 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably King v. Bankerd (1985), Cochran v. Norkunas (2007)
12 federal appellate · 14 district · 147 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Riviera Congress Associates ex rel. Lewy v. Yassky · Von Lusch v. State · Baltimore Transit Co. v. Mezzanotti · Ruzicka v. Rager · Lichtyger v. Franchard Corp.
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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[A]mong the basic objectives in providing for discovery is ‘to require disclosure of facts by a party litigant to all of his adversaries, and thereby to eliminate, as far as possible, the necessity of any party to litigation going to trial in a confused or muddled state of mind, concerning the facts that give rise to the litigation.’ Klein v. Weiss, 284 Md. 36, 55 , 395 A.2d 126, 137 (1978). Further, ‘[i]n order to accomplish the above purposes, the discovery rules are to be liberally construed.’ * * * Baltimore Transit Co. v. Mezzanotti 227 Md. 8, 13-14 , 174 A.2d 768, 771 (1961)....””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Apparent authority results from certain acts or manifestations by the alleged principal to a third party leading the third party to believe that an agent had authority to act.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) A limited partner is liable to the partnership (1) for the difference between the limited partner’s contribution as actually made and that stated in the certificate as having been made, and (2) for any unpaid contribution that the limited partner agreed in the certificate to make in the future at the time and on the conditions stated in the certificate. (b) A limited partner holds as trustee for the partnership (1) specific property stated in the certificate as contributed by the limited partner, but that was not contributed or that has been wrongfully returned, and (2) money or other property wrongfully paid or conveyed to the limited partner on account of the limited partner’s contribution. (c) The liabilities of a limited partner as set out in this section can be waived or compromised only by the consent of all members; but a waiver or compromise does not affect the right of a creditor of a partnership, who extended credit or whose claim arose after the filing and before a cancellation or amendment of the certificate, to enforce such liabilities. (d) When a contributor has rightfully received the return in whole or in part of the capital of the person's contribution, the contributor is nevertheless liable to the partnership for a sum, not in excess of such return with interest, necessary to discharge its liabilities to all creditors who extended credit or whose claims arose before the return.”
2 later decisions 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.