Frank v. Baltimore County’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Harbor Island Marina v. BOARD OF CTY. COMMISSIONERS OF CALVERT CTY. (1979), Lewis v. State (1998)
124 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 72
Relies on Rowell v. United States · Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould · State v. Fabritz · Mazor v. State, Dep't of Correction · Duncan and Smith v. State
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whenever by statute, charter, ordinances, resolution, regulation or policy adopted thereunder, whether as part of a pension system or otherwise, any benefit or benefits are furnished employees of employers covered under § 21(a)(2) of this article, the dependents and others entitled to benefits under this article as a result of the death of such employees, the benefit or benefits when furnished by the employer shall satisfy and discharge pro tanto or in full as the case may be, the liability or obligation of the employer and the Subsequent Injury Fund for any benefit under this article. If any benefits so furnished are less than those provided for in this article the employer or the Subsequent Injury Fund, or both shall furnish the additional benefit as will make up the difference between the benefit furnished and the similar benefit required in this article. Provided, however, the computation of the additional benefit shall be applicable only at the time of the initial award of benefits and shall not be applicable to any cost of living adjustments after the initial award, and this provision shall be retroactive to benefits received before July 1, 1980.” Art. 101, § 33(c) (emphasis added).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In reviewing ... [the Commission’s ruling on this issue] we, as was the circuit court, are to be guided by the general statutory command that 'the decision[s] of the Commission [are] entitled to prima facie correctness.’ Md. Bureau of Mines v. Powers, 258 Md. 379, 382 , 265 A.2d 860, 862 (1970) (applying Md. Code (1957, 1964 Repl. Vol.), Art. 101, § 56 (c)). A court, therefore, may reverse a commission ruling only upon a fínding that its action was based upon an erroneous construction of the law or facts, id. at 383 [862]; Md. Code (1957, 1979 Repl. Vol.), Art. 101, § 56(c), the former being the sole issue presented for judicial determination in this case.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]s also consistent with the generally recognized policy underlying all wage-loss legislation: Wage-loss legislation is designed to restore to the worker a portion ... of wages lost due to the three major causes of wage-loss: physical disability, economic unemployment, and old age. The crucial operative fact is that of wage loss ... Now if a workman undergoes a period of wage loss due to all three conditions, it does not follow that he should receive three sets of benefits simultaneously and thereby recover more than his actual wage. He is experi encing only one wage loss and, in any logical system, should receive only one wage-loss benefit.”
3 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.