46 Md. App. 231 - Bernstein v. Kapneck’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Bernstein v. Kapneck (1981), Tandra S. v. Tyrone W. (1994)
32 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 Mangini v. McClurg · Ray v. Eurice · Aronovitch v. Levy · Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. · Harvey v. Slacum
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For the sole consideration of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ... Helen M. Bernstein, individually and as parent and natural guardian of Irene Schulman, a minor, hereby releases and forever discharges Barbara Sue Sussman and Government Employees Insurance Company ... and all other persons, firms or corporations liable for or who might claim to be liable, ... from any and all claims, demands, damages, actions, causes of action, or suits of whatsoever kind or nature, and particularly on account of loss or damage to the property and on account of bodily injuries, known and unknown, and which have resulted or may in the future develop, sustained by Irene Schulman, a minor, born on 3/25/70, or arising out of damage or loss direct or indirect sustained by the undersigned in consequence of an accident involving the automobile accident occurring on or about July 25, 1975.... [(emphasis supplied).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bernstein v. Kapneck“"It does, however, establish that a trial court may now revise an enrolled judgment, not only if facts and circumstances are shown to establish that the entry of the enrolled judgment resulted from fraud, mistake, or irregularity, ... but, also if it resulted from a failure of an employee of the court or of the clerk’s office to perform a duty required by statute or rule. Of course, once fraud, mistake, or irregularity, including an employee’s failure to perform such a duty has been established, the party moving to set aside an enrolled judgment must still additionally show that it is acting in good faith, with ordinary diligence, and that it has a meritorious defense or cause of action.” (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The type of situation in which mistake might be applicable is demonstrated by Miles v. Hamilton, 269 Md. 708 , 309 A.2d 631 (1973), (no valid service of process) and Ashe v. Spears, 263 Md. 622 , 284 A.2d 207 (1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 958 [ 92 S.Ct. 2061 , 32 L.Ed.2d 344 ] (1972), (a contention of no valid service of process). It is further demonstrated by two cases arising before adoption of Rule 625, Harvey v. Slacum, 181 Md. 206, 210-11 , 29 A.2d 276 (1942), (default judgment entered where there had been no valid service of process), and May v. Wolvington, 69 Md. 117 , 14 A. 706 (1888), (judgment by default entered for lack of a plea when appropriate pleading had in fact been filed).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.