Kearney v. Berger’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
August 2020
most recently cited
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Oxtoby v. McGowan · Witte v. Azarian · Houghton v. County Comm'rs of Kent Co. · Walzer v. Osborne · King v. State
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We have ... explicitly rejected the notion that failure to satisfy the [Act's] procedures divests a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Maryland law requires that the [c]ertificate mention explicitly the name of the licensed professional who allegedly breached the standard of care.... We believe that this requirement is consistent with the General Assembly's intent to avoid non-meritorious claims. Moreover, it is reasonable because the [c]ertificate would be rendered useless without an identification of the alleged negligent parties. When a [c]ertificate does not identify, with some specificity, the person whose actions should be evaluated, it would be impossible for the opposing party, the HCADRO, and the courts to evaluate whether a physician, or a particular physician out of several, breached the standard of care.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Except as otherwise provided in §§ 3-2A-08A [enabling a defendant, subject to certain time constraints, to make “an offer of judgment” without risk that such offer be used against him or her should it be rejected] and 3-2A-09 [setting a cap on non-economic damages in all medical malpractice cases] of this subtitle, the provisions of this subtitle shall be deemed procedural in nature and may not be construed to create, enlarge, or diminish any cause of action not heretofore existing, except the defense of failure to comply with the procedures required under this subtitle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lewis v. Waletzky
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.