55 Md. App. 710 - Duckworth v. Bernstein’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
2 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably 176 Md. App. 631 - Crowder v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007), 59 Md. App. 193 - Kramer v. McCormick (1984)
2 district · 22 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 22 Md. App. 115 - Jacober v. High Hill Realty, Inc. · 15 Md. App. 503 - Colburn v. Colburn · Plitt v. Kaufman · Milholland v. Tiffany · Kline v. Inland Rubber Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Except for a bona fide error of computation, if a lender violates any provision of this subtitle he may collect only the principal amount of the loan and may not collect any interest, costs, or other charges with respect to the loan. In addition, a lender who knowingly violates any provision of this subtitle also shall forfeit to the borrower three times the amount of interest and charges collected in excess of that authorized by law.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is a law intended to guard the foolish or unsophisticated borrower, who may be under severe financial pressure, from his own improvidence. The law achieves this beneficent purpose by penalizing even the unwitting violator to the extent of limiting him to recovery of the principal amount of the loan. This is consistent with the strong Maryland policy against usury. It is also consistent with the legislative approach to consumer protection illustrated in Brown v. Doug Griffith Dodge City, 52 Md.App. 687 , 452 A.2d 984 (1982)[J”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In this case, there was an affidavit attached to the deed of trust. The affidavit stated: [T]he consideration resided [sic ] in said Deed of Trust is true and bona fide as therein set forth and that the actual sum of money advanced at the closing transaction by the secured party was paid over and disbursed by the party or parties secured by the Deed of Trust to the Borrower or to the person responsible for disbursement of funds in the closing transaction or their respective agent at a time not later than the execution and delivery by the Borrower of this Deed of Trust. ... The question in this appeal is whether this affidavit satisfied the requisites of R.P. § 4-106. Although the affidavit refers to consideration and states that the funds were disbursed “not later than the execution and delivery” of the deed of trust, there is no dispute that the money was not disbursed at that time. We find that, under these circumstances, the affidavit did not satisfy the requisites of § 4-106. ... Although Ameriquest is correct that substantial, rather than literal, compliance is the standard regarding the content of an affidavit of consideration, we hold that there was not substantial compliance with the statute in this case. ... here, that Ameriquest subsequently disbursed the amount of money stated in the affidavit did not change the fact that the affidavit of consideration was false when made. Therefore, the mortgage was “void as against creditors of the mortgagor, at least those witho”
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.