Yamaner v. Orkin’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Sadler v. Dimensions Healthcare Corp. (2003), St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Smith (1990)
32 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 Duncan and Smith v. State · Winterwerp v. Allstate Insurance · Merchants Mortgage Co. v. Lubow · 61 Md. App. 122 - Dent v. Simmons · Attorney Grievance Commission v. Dacy
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before a court metes out Rule 1-341 sanctions, it must make an evidentiary finding of “bad faith” or “lack of substantial justification.” ... Whether bad faith or lack of substantial justification is found by a court to exist in any given case is a question of fact subject to a “clearly erroneous” standard of review. Once a court finds that a party or counsel has acted in bad faith or without substantial justification the court may apportion costs and reasonable attorney’s fees or may choose not to award fees at all. On appeal the appropriateness of the sanction imposed is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and the sanction will not be disturbed unless there had been an abuse of discretion, [citations omitted]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order ... it is within the power of the trial court later to grant a renewal of a summary judgment motion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here Yamaner had two strings to his bow. His legal argument was that res ipsa loquitur does not apply in medical malpractice cases. That argument was reinforced by the discovery deadline which passed after Judge Latham’s ruling. Arguably there was no opinion of Dr. Mayle implicating Yamaner and Orkin had not produced any other expert. From the standpoint of evidentiary material submitted in the record, the facts on the issue of when the injury occurred had also changed. The additional use of Dr. Mayle’s arbitration hearing testimo ny arguably eliminated the generality in testimony relied upon by Judge Latham and isolated the time of injury to a period when Yamaner had no responsibility for the positioning of the patient.”
1 later decision 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.