Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 61 Md. App. 40 - Sanders v. Rowan

61 Md. App. 40 - Sanders v. Rowan’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Winback & Conserve Program, Inc. (1994), Mullen v. Horton (1997)

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions

1801984199020002010decided

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 Cox v. Prince George's County · Countess v. State · Henkelmann v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · Globe Indemnity Co. v. Victill Corp. · B. P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe

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.

  1. “[T]he principal/agent relationship is a generic one — a genus, of which the master/servant relationship is a species. Thus, while all masters are principals and all servants are agents, there are some principals who are not masters and some agents who are not servants. Agents who are not servants are regarded as independent contractors.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In the absence of an exculpatory agreement, a principal authorizing a servant or other agent to enter into negotiations to which representations concerning the subject matter thereof are usually incident is subject to liability for loss caused to the other party to the transaction by tortious misrepresentations of the agent upon matters which the principal might reasonably expect would be the subject of representations, provided the other party has no notice that the representations are unauthorized. (Emphasis added.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “are more than merely helpful hints to those engaged in the horse racing industry. They are also precise rubrics, intended to ensure the integrity of the industry and to protect the public against fraud and corruption. They do this, in part, by establishing certain specific procedures to be followed in the running of races, by requiring nearly everyone participating in the conduct of racing to be licensed, and by placing specific responsibility on the various licensees to follow the mandated procedures.”
    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.