Boland v. Boland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 34 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company. Absent an abuse of discretion, that judgment will be respected by the courts. The burden is on the party challenging the decision to establish facts rebutting the presumption.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Oliveira v. Sugarman · Oliveira v. Sugarman

2. “I. Can a Will satisfy the requirements of valid execution in Maryland if (a) the testator and the witnesses do not sign on the same page, or on physically connected pages, (b) the Will contains no proper attestation clause, and (c) the Will was not otherwise regular on its face because it expressly states the pages were initialed, but they were not? II. Can a presumption of due execution attach to a Will (a) executed by the testator and the witnesses on separate, loose pages, (b) containing no valid attestation clause, (c) expressly stating the pages were initialed, when they were not, and (d) lacking any other evidence that the witnesses signed in the presence of the testator, based on a common font, consecutive page numbering, and continuation of language? III. Can summary judgment as to a Will’s validity be granted where the physical description of the Will by two of the witnesses directly contradict[s] the actual physical condition of the Will submitted for probate? STANDARD OF REVIEW The question of whether a trial court’s grant of summary judgment was proper is a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. In reviewing a grant of summary judgment under Md. Rule 2-501, we independently review the record to determine whether the parties properly generated a dispute of material fact, and, if not, whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and construe any reasonable i”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Castruccio v. Estate of Castruccio · Chateau Foghorn LP v. Hosford

3. “are presumed to act properly and in the best interest of the corporation,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. In re Res. Capital Corp., S'holder Derivative Litig. · Oliveira v. Sugarman