73 Md. App. 367 - Gasper v. Lighthouse, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably Destefano v. Grabrian (1988), Figueiredo-Torres v. Nickel (1991)
2 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Deems v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · 101 Mich. App. 537 - Cotton v. Kambly · 100 Wash. 2d 739 - Lund v. Caple · Kline v. Ansell · Goldberg v. Musim
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]bolition of the actions for alienation of affections and criminal conversation does not preclude a person from maintaining a traditional breach of contract action or a recognized tort action merely because the breach arose from an improper liaison with the plaintiff's spouse or because one effect of the alleged breach or tortious conduct was a disruption or breakup of his or her marriage. What is precluded, however, is the refitting of the abolished actions into other forms. One cannot sue to recover for injuries arising from "defilement of the marriage bed" or from an interference with the marriage by simply casting the defendant's conduct as a breach of contract, or negligence, or some other intentional tort. It is that kind of sham that the case law prevents.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Counts IV and V sound in professional malpractice. Such an action may well lie against a marriage counselor who fails to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her calling. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 299A. But, as with the breach of contract action, we have to examine not merely the form of the action but its real basis. It is clear from the incorporation of the underlying allegations and the absence of any other articulated negligence that the sole basis of these actions was Derby’s cuckolding activity. It is therefore precluded. Destafano v. Grabrian, supra, 729 P.2d 1018 . Likewise Count VI. Lund v. Caple, supra, 675 P.2d 226 , and cf. Harrington v. Pages, supra, 440 So.2d 521 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“basis of the action was the destruction of the marriage and the injuries allegedly arising from it”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rer v. Jg
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.