Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 Md. 52 - Waddell v. Kirkpatrick

Waddell v. Kirkpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
2
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

4 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Rios v. Montgomery County (2005), Heron v. Strader (2000)

4 district · 61 state decisions

3001993200020102020decided

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 Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc. · The Harrisburg · American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar · Poffenberger v. Risser · 60 Cal. 2d 690 - Cross v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

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

  1. “Once it has been established that section 3-904(g) is a condition precedent, as opposed to a statute of limitations, it follows inexorably that it does not fit within the prescription of section 5-101. Consequently, section 5-201 does not save a cause of action for wrongful death notwithstanding the disability of the plaintiff at the time the action accrued.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “WHEREAS, the General Assembly desires to bring the statute of limitations for wrongful death actions in uniformity with that of other negligence actions. WHEREAS, there is no logical reason for the variance between the time limits for commencement of actions. * WHEREAS, citizens may be misled to their detriment by the variance between the respective statutes of limitations resulting in an undue forfeiture of rights.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) When a cause of action subject to a limitation under Subtitle 1 of this title OR TITLE 3, SUBTITLE 9 OF THIS ARTICLE accrues in favor of a minor or mental incompetent, that person shall file his action within the lesser of three years or the applicable period of limitations after the date the disability is removed.”
    2 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.