95 Md. App. 607 - Esslinger v. Baltimore City’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 24 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) whether the parties are the same as, or in privity with, the parties to the earlier dispute; (2) whether the cause of action presented is identical to the one determined in the prior adjudication; and, (3) whether there was a final judgment on the merits in the initial action.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 97 Md. App. 520 - Major v. First Virginia Bank-Central Maryland · 85 F. Supp. 2d 566 - Anyanwutaku v. Fleet Mortgage Group, Inc.

2. “Both § 24 of the Restatement and the Court of Appeals in approving the transactional test set forth there... make it clear that “[ejquating claim with transaction” is “justified only when the parties have ample procedural means for fully developing the entire transaction in the one action going to the merits to which the plaintiff is ordinarily confined.” Part and parcel of being afforded “ample procedural means” in an initial action.. .is.. .being afforded the opportunity to pursue all of one’s remedies in that action.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Batts v. Lee · Grimes v. Miller

3. “We have not found even one reported opinion ... in which a litigant was permitted to amend an administrative appeal to assert a claim for compensatory or punitive damages. A litigant asserting, or defending against, a claim for damages typically is permitted extensive discovery to build or defend his case; discovery is usually not available before a Maryland administrative agency and certainly was not available in this case. Yet in reviewing an administrative appeal the circuit court is usually, and was here, confined to reviewing the administrative decision for lack of substantial evidence or an error in law. Thus, almost always, and certainly here, the scope of judicial review of administrative decisions is narrow. Moreover, judicial review of an administrative decision is usually conducted by a judge alone; usually, there is no right to a trial by jury. Yet, the state and federal constitutions generally provide for a right to a trial by jury in claims for civil damages. For all these reasons, we think it highly unlikely that the Court of Appeals would hold that a Maryland court should, let alone must, permit a litigant to amend its administrative appeal from a Zoning Board decision to add a claim for money damages against the Zoning Board and various government officials.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grimes v. Miller