Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 416 Md. 707 - Hashmi v. Bennett

Hashmi v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia · COLOMIRIS v. Woods · General Motors Corp. v. Lahocki · Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zdrok · Cochran v. Norkunas

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

  1. “A release by the injured person of one joint tort-feasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tort-feasors unless the release so provides, but it reduces the claim against the other tort-feasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced, if greater than the consideration paid.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Is given before the right of the other tort-feasor to secure a money judgment for contribution has accrued; and (2) Provides for a reduction, to the extent of the pro rata share of the released tort-feasor, of the injured person’s damages recoverable against all other tort-fea-sors.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A court construing an agreement ... must first determine from the language of the agreement itself what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have meant at the time it was effectuated. In addition, when the language of the contract is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction, and a court must presume that the parties meant what they expressed. In these circumstances, the true test of what is meant is not what the parties to the contract intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant. Consequently, the clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give away [ ] to what the parties thought that the agreement meant or intended it to mean....”
    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.