83 Md. App. 621 - State Highway Administration v. Greiner Engineering Sciences, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 14 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2016 · most notably Martin Marietta Corp. v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (1992), J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. (2004)
4 federal appellate · 14 district · 13 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 Rodriguez v. United States · Hume v. United States · General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels · E. C. Ernst, Inc. v. Manhattan Construction Company of Texas, Providence Hospital, Fairbanks-Morse, Inc., Charles H. McCauley Associates, Inc. · People's Counsel v. Maryland Marine Manufacturing Co.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[D]elay “not contemplated by the parties” is not an exception to the general rule that “no damage for delay” clauses are enforceable. We conclude that parties can mutually assent to such a clause without contemplating in particularity all of the potential causes of delay. Indeed, the adoption of a “no damage for delay” clause shows that the parties realize that some delays cannot be contemplated at the time of the drafting of the contract. The parties include the clause in the contract in order to resolve problems conclusively should such delays occur. The parties can deal with delays they contemplate by adjusting the start and completion dates or by including particular provisions in the contract. “[I]t is the unforeseen events which occasion the broad language of the clause since foreseeable ones could be readily provided for by specific language.” City of Houston v. R.F. Ball Construction Co., Inc., 570 S.W.2d 75, 78 (Tex.Civ.App.1978). Thus, the doctrine of mutual assent supports our conclusion that delays not contemplated by the parties should not be an exception to the rule that “no damage for delay” clauses should be enforced.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A court construing an agreement under this test must first determine from the language of the agreement itself what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have meant at the time it was effectuated. In addition, when the language of the contract is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction, and a court must presume that the parties meant what they expressed. In these circumstances, the true test of what is meant is not what the parties to the contract intended it to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have thought it meant. Consequently, the clear and unambiguous language of an agreement will not give away to what the parties thought that the agreement meant or intended it to mean. As a result, when the contractual language is clear and unambiguous, and in the absence of fraud, duress, or mistake, parol evidence is not admissible to show the inten tion of the parties or to vary, alter, or contradict the terms of that contract.”
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.