Hatzinicolas v. Protopapas’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership (1996), Lovelace v. Anderson (2001)
36 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 James v. Prince George's County · Baltimore Transit Co. v. State Rx Rel. Schriefer · Thompson v. Thompson · Jessie Thompson v. Charles N Thompson · Mahnke v. Moore
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[i]n these circumstances, there can be no basis for the contention that the daughter’s suit against her father’s estate would be contrary to public policy, for the simple reason that there is no home at all in which discipline and tranquility are to be preserved____ [W]hen ... the parent is guilty of acts which show complete abandonment of the parental relation, the rule giving him immunity from suit by the child, on the ground that discipline should be maintained in the home, cannot logically be applied, for when he is guilty of such acts he forfeits his parental authority and privileges, including his immunity from suit.... Justice demands that a minor child shall have a right of action against a parent for injuries resulting from cruel and inhuman treatment or for malicious and wanton wrongs.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Renko v. McLean“(a) An unincorporated association, joint stock company, or other group which has a recognized group name may sue or be sued in the group name on any cause of action affecting the common property, rights, and liabilities of the group. (b) An action under this section: (1) Has the same force and effect with respect to the common property, rights, and liabilities of the group as if all members of the group were joined; and (2) Does not abate because of any change of membership in the group or its dissolution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Preservation of the family interests ... does not require that we extend parent-child, immunity to bar any recovery from a parent's partner’’); Waltzinger v. Birsner, 212 Md. 107 , 128 A.2d 617 [(1957)] (An emancipated child may sue his or her parent in tort); Mahnke v. Moore, 197 Md. 61, 68 , 77 A.2d 923, 926 (1951) (”
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.