Davis v. Dipino’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
8 district · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably DiPino v. Davis (1999), Shoemaker v. Smith (1999)
8 district · 84 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Malley v. Briggs · Pulliam v. Allen · Komen v. Robbins · Neshewat v. Hagstrom · Abujasen v. United States
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Furthermore, our cases have consistently held that in appeals from either a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss, an appellate court must focus on whether the trial court properly ruled on the motion before it. For example, in Antigua Condominium v. Melba Investors, 307 Md. 700 [ 517 A.2d 75 ] (1986), the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the trial court granted that motion. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals remanded certain claims to the trial court after concluding that the allegations in plaintiffs complaint may have stated a legally sufficient cause of action. On certiorari to this Court, the defendants argued that certain documents produced in discovery should be considered in ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss. We refused to consider those documents and noted that the discretion to treat a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and thereby consider matters outside the pleadings is committed to the trial court where the plaintiff is given “a reasonable opportunity to present ... additional pertinent material. We cannot exercise the discretions which are in the first instance committed to the trial court.” Antigua Condominium, 307 Md. at 719 [ 517 A.2d 75 ] (citation omitted). Thus, because the trial court did not convert the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment by considering the discovery documents, we refused to consider those documents in determining wh”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an appellate court should not undertake to review whether a plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when the only motion filed and the only motion on appeal was the trial court’s grant of summary judgment”). 18 . We further explained that, although Baumgardner and other cases discussed in Wathen arose prior to the quiet title statute, the statute was”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Maryland Rule 2-501(e) provides, in relevant part: The court shall enter judgment in favor of or against the moving party if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
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.