73 Md. App. 415 - Schlossberg v. Epstein’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 133 Md. App. 442 - Berringer v. Steele (2000), 100 Md. App. 71 - Mattvidi Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Nationsbank of Virginia, N.A. (1994)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 23 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
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 541
Relies on Berkey v. Delia · Varney v. Lucerne-In-Maine Village Corp. · Attorney Grievance Commission v. Tyrrell · Coffey v. Derby Steel Co. · DiGrazia v. COUNTY EXEC. FOR MONT. CTY.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the presence of one or more of the following acts or circumstances may affect the “good faith” posture of the insurer: [1] the severity of the plaintiffs injuries giving rise to the likelihood of a verdict greatly in excess of the policy limits; [2] lack of proper and adequate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the accident; [3] lack of skillful evaluation of plaintiffs disability; [4] failure of the insurer to inform the insured of a compromise offer within or near the policy limits; [5] pressure by the insurer on the insured to make a contribution towards a compromise settlement ■within the policy limits, as an inducement to settlement by the insurer; and [6] actions which demonstrate a greater concern for the insurer’s monetary interests than the financial risk attendant to the insured’s predicament.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The doctrine of minimization of damages is not a defense to a plaintiff's cause of action, whether that cause of action be one based in negligence or contract; rather, it is a "disability on (or a 'no right' to) recovery of reasonably avoidable damages." The doctrine serves to reduce the amount of damages to which a plaintiff might otherwise have been entitled had he or she used all reasonable efforts to minimize the loss he or she sustained as a result of a breach of duty by the defendant. ... Thus, it is clear that the doctrine does not place any duty on a plaintiff or create an affirmative right in anyone. ... [I]n order for the doctrine of minimization of damages to apply, there must first have been a breach of duty on the part of the defendant, who then raises an issue as to the propriety of the losses or damages claimed by the plaintiff.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because it is aimed primarily at benefitting a defendant, the burden of proving that a loss could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable effort on the part of the plaintiff is upon the defendant, whose breach of duty caused the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Thus, it is clear that the doctrine does not place any duty on a plaintiff or create an affirmative right in anyone.”
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.