Williams v. Maynard’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8 district · 46 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Dishman v. State · Cotham and Maldonado v. Board of County Commissioners · Grubbs v. Prince George's County · State v. Harris · 123 Md. App. 119 - Williams v. Montgomery County
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The notice requirements] are intended to apprise a local government of its possible liability at a time when it could conduct its own investigation, i.e., while the evidence was still fresh and the recollection of the witnesses was undiminished by time, sufficient to ascertain the character and extent of the injury and its responsibility in connection with it.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““(1) Except in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Harford County, and Prince George's County, the notice shall be given in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing a postmark from the United States Postal Service, by the claimant or the representative of the claimant, to the county commissioner, county council, or corporate authorities of a defendant local government, or: “(i) In Baltimore City, to ihe City Solicitor; “(ii) In Howard County, to the County Executive; and “(iii) In Montgomery County, to the County Executive. “(2) In Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Harford County, and Prince George's County, the notice shall be given in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing a postmark from the United States Postal Service, by the claimant or the representative of the claimant, to the county solicitor or county attorney. “(3) The notice shall be in writing and shall state the time, place, and cause of the injury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) Limitations. — An action for damages for an injury arising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services by a health case provider ... shall be filed within the earlier of: (1) Five years of the time the injury was committed; or (2) Three years of the date the injury was discovered. (b) Actions by claimants under age 11. — Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, if the claimant was under the age of 11 years at the time the injury was committed, the time limitations prescribed in subsection (a) of this section shall commence when the claimant reaches the age of 11 years. (c) Exceptions to age limitations in certain actions.— (1) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section may not be applied to an action for damages for an injury: (1) To the reproductive system of the claimant; or (ii) Caused by a foreign object negligendy left in the claimant's body. (2) In an action for damages for an injuty described in this subsection, if the claimant was under the age of 16 years at the time the injury was committed, the time limitations prescribed in subsection (a) of this section shall commence when the claimant reaches the age of 16 years.”
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.