Bobo v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
8 district · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Adamson v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (2000), Remsburg v. Montgomery (2003)
8 district · 118 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 Lewis v. Reynolds · Jacques v. First National Bank · Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A. · Hartford Insurance v. Manor Inn of Bethesda, Inc. · McCray v. Maryland
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[T]here can be no negligence where there is no duty that is due; for negligence is the breach of some duty that one person owes to another. It is consequently relative and can have no existence apart from some duty expressly or impliedly imposed. In every instance before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which duty would have averted or avoided the injury.... As the duty owed varies with circumstances and with the relation to each other of the individuals concerned, so the alleged negligence varies, and the act complained of never amounts to negligence in law or in fact; if there has been no breach of duty.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b)(2), a trial court must assume the truth of all well-pleaded relevant and material facts in the complaint, as well as all inferences that reasonably can be drawn therefrom. * Stone v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. , 330 Md. 329 , 333, 624 A.2d 496 , 498 (1993) ; Odyniec v. Schneider , 322 Md. 520 , 525, 588 A.2d 786 , 788 (1991). To this end, the facts comprising the cause of action must be pleaded with sufficient specificity. Bald assertions and conclusory statements by the pleader will not suffice. [ Cont'l ] Masonry Co. v. Verdel Constr. Co. , 279 Md. 476 , 481, 369 A.2d 566 , 569 (1977). Further, while the words of a pleading will be given reasonable construction, when a pleading is doubtful and ambiguous, it will be construed most strongly against the pleader in determining its sufficiency. Hixon v. Buchberger , 306 Md. 72 , 75, 507 A.2d 607 , 608 (1986) ; Read Drug & Chem. Co. v. Colwill Constr. Co. , 250 Md. 406 , 416, 243 A.2d 548 , 555 (1968). Dismissal is proper only if the alleged facts and permissible inferences, so viewed, would, if proven, nonetheless fail to afford relief to the plaintiff. Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving , 340 Md. 519 , 531, 667 A.2d 624 , 630 (1995). On appeal, a reviewing court must determine whether the trial court was legally correct, examining solely the sufficiency of the pleading.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If, on a motion to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 2-501, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 2-501.”
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.