Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 MDAPP 281 - Rountree v. Lerner Development Co.

Rountree v. Lerner Development Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2011

21 state decisions

801982199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “a right to assume that the landlord would take all appropriate steps to make safe egress possible.” Rountree, 52 Md.App. at 285 , 447 A.2d at 904 . It specifically emphasized, however, that”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘The second important limitation upon the defense of assumption of risk is that the plaintiff is not barred from recovery unless his choice is a free and voluntary one. There must first of all, of course, be some manifestation of consent to relieve the defendant of the obligation of reasonable conduct. It is not every deliberate encountering of a known danger which is reasonably to be interpreted as evidence of such consent.’ ” Id. at 284 , 447 A.2d 902 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]here can be no restriction on the plaintiffs freedom of choice either by the existing circumstances or by coercion emanating from the defendant. This is so because even where the plaintiff does not protest, the risk is not assumed where the conduct of the defendant has left [the plaintiff] no reasonable alternative. Where the defendant puts [the plaintiff] to a choice of evils, there is a species of duress, which destroys the idea of freedom of election.”
    2 later decisions 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.