Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 Md. App. 217 - St. James Construction Co. v. Morlock

89 Md. App. 217 - St. James Construction Co. v. Morlock’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Saltiel v. GSI Consultants, Inc. (2002), Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc. v. Capital Terminal Co. (2004)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 19 state decisions

1801991200020102020decided

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 MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Robeson v. State · Peterson v. Underwood · Council of Co-Owners Atlantis Condominium, Inc. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. · 27 Md. App. 172 - Gai Audio of New York, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

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

  1. “The general rule is that corporate officers or agents are personally liable for those torts which they personally commit, or which they inspire or participate in, even though performed in the name of an artificial body.... [T]o make an officer of a corporation liable for the negligence of the corporation there must have been upon his part such a breach of duty as contributed to, or helped to bring about, the injury; he must have been a participant in the wrongful act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “parties do not obtain a great deal of satisfaction from them as a discovery device. Regularly the propounding party seeks to obtain more of an admission than that to which he is entitled and consequently the answer given is all but useless. The purpose of the rule is not to press known discovery requests.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “took judicial notice of copies of ... national building standards rather than the County Code itself, thereby making it difficult to determine whether and how the national building standards had been amended in their adoption by [the] County”
    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.