83 Md. App. 44 - Sheets v. Chepko’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 10 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Ojn account of the extensive use of the motor vehicle with its accompanying dangers, the courts have realized that a strict application of the doctrine of respondeat superior in the modern commercial world would result in great injus tice____ It is now held by the great weight of authority that a master will not be held responsible for [the] negligent operation of a servant’s automobile, even though engaged at the time in furthering the master’s business unless the master expressly or impliedly consents to the use of the automobile, and ... had the right to control the servant in its operation, or else the use of the automobile was of such vital importance in furthering the master’s business that his control over it might reasonably be inferred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barclay v. Briscoe

2. “The [plaintiffs] mention in their statement of facts ... a stipulation by the [employer], for purposes of Worker’s Compensation, that injuries received by [the employee] in the accident were work-related.... [W]e note that ... the Court of Appeals specifically rejected the application of principles of Worker's Compensation to a determination of whether a particular activity was within the scope of employment for purposes of establishing vicarious liability of an employer.”); Henderson v. AT&T Info. Sys., 78 Md.App. 126 , 552 A.2d 935, 940-41 (1989) (stating that plaintiffs should not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 536 F. Supp. 2d 585 - Germain v. Norris

3. “The doctrine of respondeat superior allows an employer to be held “vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of an employee when the employee is acting within the scope of the employment relationship.” Dhanraj v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 305 Md. 623, 627 , 506 A.2d 224 (1989) (citation omitted). “[T]he test for determining if an employee is acting within the scope of employment is ‘whether the servant was advancing his master’s interests in doing what he did at the time he did it.’” Henderson v. AT&T Information Systems, 78 Md.App. 126, 132 , 552 A.2d 935”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.