Kirwan v. the Diamondback’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably City of Baltimore Development Corporation v. Carmel Realty Associates (2006), Office of the Governor v. Washington Post Co. (2000)
2 district · 67 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 20 U.S.C. § 1232 · 20 U.S.C. § 1232G (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Fioretti v. Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners · Blandon v. State · A. S. Abell Publishing Co. v. Mezzanote · Zaal v. State · Brown v. Brown
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[t]he Maryland Public Information Act establishes a public policy and a general presumption in favor of disclosure of government or public documents. The statute thus provides (§ 10-612(a) and (b) of the State Government Article): `(a) General Right to information. All persons are entitled to have access to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. (b) General construction. To carry out the right set forth in subsection (a) of this section, unless an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a person in interest would result, this Part III of this subtitle shall be construed in favor of permitting inspection of a public record, with the least cost and least delay to the person or governmental unit that requests the inspection.'"”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The term `personnel record' is not expressly defined in the statute. Nonetheless, the language of subsection (i) discloses what type of documents the Legislature considered to be personnel records. The statute lists three categories of documents which are: (1) an application for employment; (2) performance rating; and (3) scholastic achievement. Although this list was probably not intended to be exhaustive, it does reflect a legislative intent that `personnel records' mean those documents that directly pertain to employment and an employee's ability to perform a job."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“(i) is made by a unit or instrumentality of the State government or of a political subdivision or received by the unit or instrumentality in connection with the transaction of public business; and (ii) is in any form, including: 1. a card; 2. a computerized record; 3. correspondence; 4. a drawing; 5. film or microfilm; 6. a form; 7. a map; 8. a photograph or photostat; 9. a recording; or 10. a tape.”
5 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.