Hayes v. Hambruch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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. “[A person] may not be held liable under the CPA for a failure to state a material fact concerning a defect in the [ ] premises, unless the [person] knows or has reason to know of the defect.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hayes v. Hambruch · 123 Md. App. 303 - Sternberger v. Kettler Bros.

2. “Hayes cites Golt , in which the Court of Appeals of Maryland found a CPA violation where a landlord rented premises without first having a license to do so. When the defendant claimed that it did not know that the dwelling unit was not properly licensed, the court replied, [ijgnorance of the law, however, is no defense. A landlord must be held to be aware of all laws concerning the validity of leasing its premises.... In other words, § 13-301(1), (2), and (3) does not require scienter on the part of the landlord; the subsections require only a false or deceptive statement that has the capacity to mislead the consumer tenant. In essence, the court held the defendant liable because the landlord should have known of the relevant law. The instant case differs somewhat from Golt , because Hambruch claims that she was unaware of the existence of a factual matter, not of the law. However, under the reasoning of Golt, we find, that a landlord must have reason to know of the material facts underlying an allegedly false or misleading representation before he or she can be held liable for a violation of the Maryland CPA. As we pointed out above, Hayes has failed to produce any evidence tending to show that Hambruch had reason to know of the dangerous condition in the residence on North Caroline Street. She thus cannot sustain a claim under the Maryland CPA. Our conclusion ... is bolstered by the Maryland Court of Appeals’ reluctance to impose a standard of strict liability on landlords.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Benik v. Hatcher

3. ““It is significant in this particular case that the lead poisoning here occurred in the mid-1970s. Defendant contends (and plaintiffs have not disputed the fact) that lead paint poisoning was not a well known problem at that time. Thus, there is no evidence that defendant was unreasonable in not being aware of the potential danger resulting from paint in the leased premises. A different case might be presented if plaintiffs had shown that the potential for lead poisoning was a danger that landlords in general should have been aware of at the time of the alleged lead poisoning.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson