Kuykendall v. Top Notch Laminates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• refusing to impose liability on a social provider of alcohol because, absent a special relationship, there is no duty to control the conduct of a third party
• Refusing to impose dram shop liability upon an employer, on the grounds of lack of control. \There is nothing in the matter sub judice to suggest that Top Notch had a right to control Wilkes' actions after business hours.\
• Refusing to impose dram shop liability upon an employer, on the grounds of lack of control. “There is nothing in the matter sub judice to suggest that Top Notch had a right to control Wilkes’ actions after business hours.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Barclay v. Briscoe
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2012-06-27· cited 53×
• Mosko v. Raytheon Co.
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1993-11-10· cited 33×
• Warr v. JMGM Group, LLC
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2013-07-25· cited 28×
• Larry Williams v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company
  Fifth Circuit· 1988-09-07· cited 20×
• Corrigan v. United States
  Fourth Circuit· 1987-04-02· cited 15×
• Valentine v. on Target, Inc.
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1996-11-13· cited 13×
• Henderson v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc.
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1989-02-02· cited 11×
• Wright v. Sue & Charles, Inc.
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2000-04-04· cited 11×
• Beard v. Graff
  Tex. App. Ct., 4th Dist. (San Antonio)· 1990-11-07· cited 10×
• Hebb v. Walker
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1988-01-18· cited 10×
• McClure v. McIntosh
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1989-04-11· cited 8×
• Unnamed case
  Fourth Circuit· 1987-06-10