75 Md. App. 102 - Wimmer v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In two early cases, Bishop v. Holy Cross Hospital, 44 Md.App. 688 , 410 A.2d 630 (1980) and Schwartz v. Lilly, 53 Md.App. 318 , 452 A.2d 1302 (1982), the claimants attempted to by-pass arbitration by filing their complaints with the circuit court before submitting them to the HCAO. We held in both cases that dismissal was warranted based on the litigants’ failure to utilize the arbitration process as required by the Act. Tranen v. Aziz, 59 Md.App. 528 , 476 A.2d 1170 (1984), aff'd, 304 Md. 605 , 500 A.2d 636 (1985), further tightened the standard of compliance by requiring litigants not only to submit the malpractice dispute to arbitration' but also to follow the special statutory procedures prescribed by the Act. In Tranen , appellants failed to file both a rejection of award and an action to nullify award as required by § 3-2A-06. This Court held that strict compliance with the statutory scheme ... was required.... Erosion of the strict compliance standard announced in Tranen began in Mitcherling v. Rosselli, 61 Md.App. 113 , 484 A.2d 1060 (1984), aff'd, 304 Md. 363 , 499 A.2d 476 (1985). In that case, the appellant-claimant failed to send a Notice of Rejection to each of the members of the arbitration panel in violation of § 3-2A-06(a). This Court affirmed the refusal by the circuit court to dismiss the appeal, holding that the claimant had “substantially complied” with the statutory provisions. We also noted that technical irregularities will not be permitted to deprive a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Md. App. 477 - Curry v. Hillcrest Clinic, Inc.

2. “Appellees do not claim that they were in any way prejudiced by appellants’ action. Any error did not affect appellees’ substantial rights because they were not misled. Appellees could not have questioned appellants’ rejection of the award or their intent to pursue a malpractice action against them. In fact, appellees did not file their motions to dismiss until after they received their notice of rejection. Recognizing the important role played by the Director of the HCAO, we emphasize that the notice of rejection must be filed with that office. Undeniably, any attempt to bypass the Director is noncompliance with the Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Md. App. 477 - Curry v. Hillcrest Clinic, Inc.