Which jurisdiction had the most cases listed? List the case name and citation for those cases.

Sample 20A Atl D 2d489 LANDLORD & TENANT c-166(1) For to Odrr , see Descriptive-Word "ulex by tenant. duty to employee of tenant who slimyd rainwater. v. 591 A,2d 716, 404 52 S, denied 612 A.2d985, 531 pa. For Tenant. to prqErty of tenant Jyem and Cm. 19SO. A landlord oues no duty to his tenant keep in repair agreed to do so. never agreed (O keep barn in repair, he was liable to to tenant from Such Of welk v. Bidwen. 73 295, 136 conn. D.C. 1983. Exculpatory clause in lease Which 'o landlord Of liability for damage caused by any and plumb' ing, Was to bar damages frun landlord inasmuch as waiver or Of rights warranty of habitability. George Washington University V. Wein- traub. 458 A.2d Where taincd over p leased tenants. tenants agreed to the premises. buildings. fixtures. plmbing in at provision in liable for any damage ty arising from damage or any Was invalid as against icy. Rishty v. R & S tractual liability. action against landlord for smoke damage resulting from fire must De Foe W _ & J. A.2d 639. A is an of the safety tenant or Of his and with to houses, is ble Of the within hYis control and his duty is to we reason- able care concerning them. De v. W. & J. Sloane, 99 R2d 639. duty to create an unsafe condition leased premises either or by any affirmative his C,bude v. Nash, 46 A.2d 542. Md. 1967. Meaning of exculpatory clause in lease was ambiguous so as to require that lease against in action against them by lessees' subrogated insurer. for or damage to property by fire other casualty, by acts Of negligence Of or by Cotenants or by rain or Snow into or the or Other building due to defects in ing or any other Hoar Indem, Co. v. Basiliko, 226 A.2d 258. 245 Md. 412. Md. "6. Where landlord retains control Ot of leased building common tenants. has implied duty rea- to keep the in a safe 2 310 Madison Ave, v. Allied Bedding Mfg. A_2d 203, 209 Md. 399. Lessees space in building could recover against for damages they sustained when the building was by fire theory Of implied Warranty Of habitability. Golub v. Colby. 419 A.2d 397. 120 NM. insure building tenant equipment and in releasing liability for damage to tenant s by fire. explosion or Otherwise was intended by to risk by human regli- as as acts Of and to draw distinction active Mayfair v. Henley. 226 A.2d 602. 48 234 A.2d soy. 116. v. Henley. 246 A-2d 749, 103 N.J.supev liable for tenant s sonal desirxd in fire caused by larid- lease that negligence would insure buikling against fire tenant wen'ld carry insurance uv-n all used. placed in. on or near the leased premises that in "o should the landlords be Sible or liable for loss or to the by fire. explosion, Or otherwise , Mayfair Fabrics v. Henley. 226 A.2d 602, 48 NJ, 483. 234 A.2d sag. 97 Natell v. Henley. 246 A.2d 749, N.J,super.