63 Md. App. 472 - Ungar v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Faya v. Almaraz (1993), 64 Md. App. 442 - Leese v. Baltimore County (1985)
36 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 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Agins v. City of Tiburon · United States v. Clarke · San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At the threshold, we acknowledge that Ungar has cited the appropriate test to be used to review the propriety of the grant or denial of a demurrer; well pleaded allegations of fact contained in the complaint are taken as true and the complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears that no set of facts can be proven in support of the claim set forth therein.” (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are of the view that count Six of the claim is likewise time barred. When suit was filed, Ungar no longer retained an interest in the property and the restriction on the property had long since been lifted. Although couched in terms of inverse condemnation, when reduced to its simplest form, Count Six is no more than a claim for damages. Given the purpose of the statute of limitations, Walko Corp. v. Burger Chef, 281 Md. 207 , 378 A.2d 1100 (1977), Decker v. Fink, 47 Md.App. 202 , 422 A.2d 389 , cert. denied, 289 Md. 735 (1981), we perceive no reason to treat this action differently than other actions not couched in constitutional terms, for damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A regulation which prohibits a beneficial use of private property constitutes a fair exercise of the police power if the public interest generally requires it and the regulation is reasonably necessary to achieve the public goal without being unduly oppressive upon individuals.” Md.-Nat’l Cap. P. & P. Comm’n v. Chadwick, [ 286 Md. 1 ] at page 9, 405 A.2d 241 [1979], Edgewood Nursing Home v. Maxwell, 282 Md. 422 , 384 A.2d 748 (1978), Smoke Rise, Inc. v. Washington Suburban San. Com’n, [ 400 F.Supp. 1369 (D.Md.1975)].”
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.