Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 Md. 249 - Jones v. Speed

Jones v. Speed’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably MEDICAL MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. SOC. OF MARYLAND v. Evans (1993), Litz v. Maryland Department of the Environment (2013)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 23 state decisions

1201990200020102020decided

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 MPC, Inc. v. Kenny · Oxtoby v. McGowan · Alvey v. Alvey · Hill v. Fitzgerald · Fletcher v. Flournoy

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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) Limitations — An action for damages for an injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services by a health care provider, as defined in § 3-2A-01 of this article, shall be filed within the earlier of: (1) Five years of the time the injury was committed; or (2) Three years of the date the injury was discovered.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`[e]ach severe and prolonged headache, and the final seizure....'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It is well established that a single cause of action or an entire claim cannot be split up or divided and separate suits maintained for the various parts thereof. A judgment or decree in a suit for a part only of a single cause of action or entire claim permits res judicata to be successfully relied on if the remainder is sued on later. The rule is intended to prevent multiplicity of litigation and to avoid the vexation, costs and expenses incident to more than one suit on the same cause of action. Its bases are the maxims that it is the interest of the State, there should be an end to litigation and that no man should be twice sued for the same cause.”
    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.