54 Md. App. 607 - Jones v. Hurst’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Joint Eastern and Southern District Asbestos Litigation Johns-Manville Corporation Findley Ej Jt v. Falise (1996), Porter Hayden Co. v. Bullinger (1998)
35 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 General Motors Corp. v. Lahocki · Griffin v. United States · Davis v. Miller · Swigert v. Welk · 41 Md. App. 579 - Lahocki v. Contee Sand & Gravel Co.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 19. Effect of release on injured person’s claim. 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 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 16. Definitions. (a) “Joint tort-feasors” means two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for .the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them. § 17. Right of contribution. (a) Right exists.—The right of contribution exists among joint tort-feasors. (b) Discharge of liability or payment of share.—A joint tort-feasor is not entitled to a money judgment for contribution until he has by payment discharged the common liability or has paid more than his pro rata share thereof. (c) When joint tort-feasor enters into settlement.—A joint tort-feasor who enters into a settlement with the injured person is not entitled to recover contribution from another joint tort-feasor whose liability to the injured person is not extinguished by the settlement. § 18. Judgment against one tort-feasor. The recovery of a judgment by the injured person against one joint tort-feasor does not discharge the other joint tort-feasor. § 19. Effect of release on injured person’s claim. A release by the injured person of one joint tort-feasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tortfeasors unless the release so provides; but 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. § 20. Effect of release on right of cont”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“I [Jones] further understand and agree that in any action or suit in which General Motors Corporation may be of [sic] has been joined as a defendant, any and all judgments recovered [sic] by me against any person, firm or corporation for any and all claims as aforesaid shall be reduced in the amount of the consideration paid for this release or to the extent of the pro rata share of said General Motors Corporation if said pro rata share is greater than the consideration paid for this release [recited to be $10.00]; or in accordance with the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tort Feasors Act, Article 50, Sections 16-20 of the Maryland Code. I further agree that for the purpose of determining the amount of any judgments that may be recovered by me against any person, firm or corporation, except General Motors Corporation in the aforesaid action ... that the said General Motors Corporation shall be considered as joint tortfeasors [sic] to the same extent and effect as if judgments had been rendered against them [sic] as joint tort-feasors.”
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.