57 Md. App. 111 - Crawford v. Mindel’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2014
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 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 Martens Chevrolet, Inc. v. Seney · Waller v. Waller · Wedeman v. City Chevrolet Co. · Empire Realty Co. v. Fleisher · Merchants Mortgage Co. v. Lubow
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) that a representation made by the respondent was false; (2) that its falsity was known to him; (3) that the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff not only relied upon the misrepresentation, but had the right to do so and would not have done the thing from which the damage resulted if it had not been made; and (5) that the plaintiff suffered damage (meaning an injury subject to being redressed by compensatory damages) directly resulting from the respondent’s misrepresentation. [Footnote omitted]. [Citations omitted].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“where a party is, under the circumstances, justified in believing that the other party will not act in a manner adverse or inconsistent with the reposing party's interest or welfare.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“from a breach of duty where a relationship of trust and confidence exists.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.