Murphy v. Edmonds’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 200 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 223 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably 179 Ill. 2d 367 - Best v. Taylor MacHine Works (1997), Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia (1992)
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 200 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Attorney General of Maryland v. Waldron · Johnson v. Johnson · 477 So. 2d 1094 - Sibley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University · Richardson Ex Rel. Estate of Richardson v. Carnegie Library Restaurant, Inc. · Kansas Malpractice Victims Coalition v. Bell
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 223 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the Maryland Constitution contains no express equal protection clause, it is settled that the Due Process Clause of the Maryland Constitution, contained in Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights, embodies the concept of equal protection of the laws to the same extent as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... [W]e have consistently taken the position that the Maryland equal protection principle applies in like manner and to the same extent as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, United States Supreme Court opinions concerning the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are practically direct authorities with regard to Article 24 of the Declaration of Rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““legislation limiting recovery of noneconomic damages might survive such heightened scrutiny [required by Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights] if applied in medical malpractice cases, but it should not survive heightened scrutiny in motor vehicle tort actions or other tort actions where there has been no clearly established need for such legislation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“That every man, for any injury done to him in his person or property, ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the Law of the land.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.