77 Md. App. 56 - Bennett v. Baskin & Sears’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably 91 Md. App. 236 - Seaboard Surety Co. v. Richard F. Kline, Inc. (1992), 130 Md. App. 373 - Utica Mutual Insurance v. Miller (2000)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · King v. Bankerd · Poffenberger v. Risser · Geisz v. Greater Baltimore Medical Center · O'HARA v. Kovens
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.
“Pursuant to the Rule, the hearing judge may grant summary judgment only when, after reviewing the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits submitted by the parties, he or she determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact, i.e., one that somehow affects the outcome of the case, King v. Bankerd, 303 Md. 98, 111 , 492 A.2d 608 (1985), and that the party for whom judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maryland Rule 2-501(e); Dietz v. Moore, 277 Md. 1, 4 , 351 A.2d 428 (1976); Castiglione v. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 69 Md.App. 325, 332 , 517 A.2d 786 (1986); May Department Stores v. Harryman, 65 Md.App. 534, 538 , 501 A.2d 468 (1985), aff'd, 307 Md. 692 , 517 A.2d 71 (1986). When we review a lower court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment, we too are concerned with whether there is a genuine dispute as to any material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We, like the lower court, must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made and resolve all inferences against the moving party. Austin v. Thrifty Diversified, Inc., 76 Md.App. 150, 152-3 , 543 A.2d 889 (1988); May Department Stores, 65 Md.App. at 538 , 501 A.2d 468 Schlossberg v. Epstein, 73 Md.App. 415, 423 , 534 A.2d 1003 (1988). We will not disturb the lower court’s ruling unless our review reveals that there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact or that mo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) Motion.—Any party may file at any time a motion for summary judgment on all or part of an action on the ground that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion shall be supported by affidavit if filed before the day on which the adverse party’s initial pleading or motion is filed. (Emphasis added) (b) Response.—The response to a motion for summary judgment shall identify with particularity the material facts that are disputed. When a motion for summary judgment is supported by an affidavit or other statement under oath, an opposing party who desires to controvert any fact contained in it may not rest solely upon allegations contained in the pleadings, but shall support the response by an affidavit or other written statement under oath. (e) Entry of Judgment.—The court shall enter judgment in favor of or against the moving party if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This policy of repose has fostered a traditional rule concerning the tolling of statutes of limitation that can be fairly termed one of strict construction. Early on we adopted this rigorous stance: “The principle of law is indisputable, that when the Statute of Limitations once begins to run, nothing will stop or impede its operation.” The rule has lost little of its vitality.... [T]he principle ... “while not immutable under all circumstances ... is still the general legal approach.” This venerable rule, which defers to the legislative intent expressed in the statute of limitations itself, ... avoids implied exceptions or strained constructions....”
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.