100 Md. App. 144 - Beck v. Mangels’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 108 Md. App. 117 - Hoffman v. UNITED IRON AND METAL COMPANY, INC. (1996), 117 Md. App. 378 - Davis v. Goodman (1997)
81 state decisions
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 Lawson v. Credithrift of America · Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc. · State v. Frye · Lodowski v. State · Jennings v. Government Employees Insurance
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“extra expense.” This section was not argued prior to the reply brief and thus is not properly before us. See Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 149 , 640 A.2d 236 (1994) (Md. Rule 8-504(a)(5) requires a party to present " 'argument in support of the party's position.’ ... therefore, it is necessary for the appellant to present and argue all points of appeal in his initial brief ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A distinction has been maintained in the law between implied grants [where a grantee is granted landlocked property] and implied reservations [where a grantor retains landlocked property]---- [I]f a grantor intends to reserve any rights ... he must reserve them expressly, and the only exception is of easements ... of ... strict necessity....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Likewise, we shall not respond to question 1, as it is an inappropriate question. Our function is to address the actions of the trial court in order to determine whether it erred. Should we err, the question can be presented to higher authority.”
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.