Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 361 Md. 258 - Heron v. Strader

Heron v. Strader’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

24 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Rios v. Montgomery County (2005), Prince George's County v. Longtin (2011)

24 district · 53 state decisions

490200020102020decided

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 American Trading Transportation Co. v. Escobar · Rose 88-1634 v. Bartle a Reed W 88-1646 · 66 Cal. 2d 24 - Viles v. State of California · Attorney General v. Johnson · DiPino v. Davis

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

  1. “excusable neglect or mistake (generally determined in reference to a reasonably prudent person standard), [2] serious physical or mental injury and/or location out-of-state, [3] the inability to retain counsel in cases involving complex litigation, ... [4] ignorance of the statutory notice requirement, or (5) misleading representations made by representative of the local government.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In short, an “ordinary prudent person” in Longtin’s position could not have given notice by the 180th day. Thus, we conclude that, even if notice on any or all of Longtin’s claims against the County and the individual appellants were untimely, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that good cause existed to excuse any delay.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, unless the defendant can affirmatively show that its defense has been prejudiced by lack of required notice, upon motion and for good cause shown the court may entertain the suit even though the required notice was not given.”
    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.