Hoffman v. Stamper’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 56 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Gourdine v. Crews (2008), MacKey v. Compass Marketing, Inc. (2006)
2 federal appellate · 56 district · 81 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 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia · United States v. Jewell · Kilduff v. Adams, Inc. · Zelman v. Simmons-Harris · Faya v. Almaraz
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) the falsity of the representation was either known to the defendant or the representation was made with reckless indifference to its truth, (3) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) the plaintiff suffered compensable injury as a result of the misrepresentation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“a conspiracy may be established by inference from the nature of the acts complained of, the individual and collective interest of the alleged conspirators, the situation and relation of the parties at the time of the commission of the acts, the motives which produced them, and all the surrounding circumstances ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We have defined a civil conspiracy as “a combination of two or more persons by an agreement or understanding to accomplish an unlawful act or to use unlawful means to accomplish an act not in itself illegal, with the further requirement that the act or means employed must result in damages to the plaintiff.” Green v. Wash. Sub. San. Comm’n, 259 Md. 206, 221 , 269 A.2d 815, 824 (1970). Although the notion of a tortious con spiracy was derived from the common law criminal conspiracy and each requires proof of an agreement, the tort plaintiff must show more than just an unlawful agreement. The plaintiff must also prove the commission of an overt act, in furtherance of the agreement, that caused the plaintiff to suffer actual injury. See Alleco, Inc. v. Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc., 340 Md. 176, 189-91 , 665 A.2d 1038, 1044-45 (1995) and cases cited there. The tort actually lies in the act causing the harm; the agreement to commit that act is not actionable on its own but rather is in the nature of an aggravating factor. That is why this Court, in Alle-co, held that civil conspiracy “ ‘is not a separate tort capable of independently sustaining an award of damages in the absence of other tortious injury to the plaintiff.’ ” Alleco, supra, 340 Md. at 189 , 665 A.2d at 1044 -45 (quoting Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. B. Dixon Evander & Associates, Inc., 336 Md. 635 , 645 n. 8, 650 A.2d 260 , 265 n. 8 (1994)).”
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.