Polakoff v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 42 state decisions

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

1. “[i]f the litigant who successfully contests a standing rule of law is denied relief because the new rule applies purely prospectively, there would be little motivation to attack settled rules of law”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Hackney v. State · State v. Daughtry

2. “The law in this State regarding the breach of a statutory duty remains the same today as it has for over ninety years. To make out a prima facie case in a negligence action based on the breach of a statutory duty, a plaintiff must show “(a) the violation of a statute or ordinance designed to protect a specific class of persons which includes the plaintiff, and (b) that the violation proximately caused the injury complained of.” Brooks [v. Lewin Realty III, Inc.], 378 Md. [70,] 79, 835 A.2d 616 [ (2003) ]. “Proximate cause is established by determining whether the plaintiff is within the class of persons sought to be protected, and the harm suffered is of a kind which the drafters intended the statute to prevent.” Id. If a landlord of property ... fails to maintain the premises in a safe condition and someone whom the Code was designed to protect ... is injured as a result of the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises [in compliance with the applicable statutes], the plaintiff will have successfully established a prima facie case of negligence. It will then be incumbent upon the finder of fact to determine whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable under all of the circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 182 Md. App. 632 - Rivers v. Hagner Management Corp.

3. ““[B]eeause the Code prescribes the property owner’s duty to keep the property continuously free of any flaking, loose, or peeling paint, the failure to keep the property in such a condition is itself evidence of negligence. Brooks does not hold that a landlord will be held strictly liable for violations of the Code; rather it reaffirmed the long-standing common law rule that a violation of a statute or ordinance is evidence of negligence. As we repeatedly stated in Brooks , proof of a statutory violation, plaintiffs membership in the class of people designed to be protected by the statute, and causation, amount to prima facie evidence of negligence, not negligence per se.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 192 Md. App. 366 - Barksdale v. Wilkowsky