Morgan v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 20 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably 93 Md. App. 772 - Hrehorovich v. Harbor Hospital Center, Inc. (1992), 118 Wash. 2d 512 - Swanson v. Liquid Air Corporation (1992)
9 federal appellate · 20 district · 68 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 Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. · Kasten Construction Co. v. Rod Enterprises, Inc. · Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Riverdale Heights Volunteer Fire Co. · Janda v. General Motors Corp. · Swigert v. Welk
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If releases given under the circumstances of these cases do not, as a matter of law, bar action against one in Dr. Cohen's position, it follows that the satisfaction of a judgment against Jones, the original tortfeasor, in an action to which Dr. Cohen was not a party, should have no greater effect. The policy implicated here is that against double recovery for the same harm, and it underlies the decisions in cases like Grantham, 251 Md. 28 , 246 A.2d 548 , (1968) Trieschman, 224 Md. 111 , 166 A.2d 892 (1961) Lanasa, 159 Md. 311 , 151 A. 21 and Cox. See also Huff v. Harbaugh, 49 Md.App. 661, 670 , 435 A.2d 108, 113 (1981). But the policy against double recovery does not apply when a judgment against the original tortfeasor for the original tort only has been satisfied, at least when the subsequent tortfeasor has not been joined in that suit. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 50 (1982). Like the question of intent with respect to the ambiguous releases, we are presented with a question of fact: Did the satisfied judgment include damages for both torts, or just the original tort? If the judgment in fact encompassed the former, Hovermill's claim against Dr. Cohen is barred because she has received full compensation for all her injuries; if it encompassed only the latter, her claim is not barred because she has been compensated only for the initial harm caused by Jones. This is a question of fact for the trial court."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"There is a genuine distinction between a satisfaction and a release. A satisfaction is an acceptance of full compensation for the injury; a release is a surrender of the cause of action, which may be gratuitous, or given for inadequate consideration. * * * Most of the courts have continued to hold that a release to one of two concurrent tortfeasors is a complete surrender of any cause of action against the other, without regard to the sufficiency of the compensation actually received * * *. This result has been justly condemned. * * * Historically, and logically, it has no justification, since causes of action against mere concurrent tortfeasors not acting in concert have always been separate * * * and a surrender of one therefore should not discharge the other, except to the extent that there has been full compensation. * * * The fear of double recovery is meaningless, since the amount paid under the release must be credited to the second tortfeasor in any case.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a negligent actor is liable not only for harm that he directly causes but also for any additional harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons in rendering aid, irrespective of whether such acts are done in a proper or a negligent manner.”
3 later decisions 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.