Droney v. Droney’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 178 Md. App. 328 - County Commissioners for Carroll County v. Forty West Builders, Inc. (2008), 183 Md. App. 406 - Royal Investment Group, LLC v. Wang (2008)
26 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 California v. Carney · 72 N.C. App. 372 - Wade v. Wade · State v. Roll and Scholl · Simms v. State · Wade v. Wade
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A question is moot if, at the time it is before the court, there is no longer an existing controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy which the court can provide.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Before a party may be held in contempt of a court order, the order must be sufficiently definite, certain, and specific in its terms so that the party may understand precisely what conduct the order requires." Droney v. Droney , 102 Md. App. 672 , 684, 651 A.2d 415 (1995). Moreover, "one may not be held in contempt of a court order unless the failure to comply with the court order was or is willful." Dodson , 380 Md. at 452 , 845 A.2d 1194 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Furthermore, because the purpose of imprisoning the contemnor is remedial, ... i.e., “to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to a suit and to compel obedience to orders and decrees primarily to benefit such parties,” ... [the Court of Appeals] consistently, and emphatically, has held that a civil contemnor may be incarcerated only when he or she has been found to have “the present ability to purge the contempt.” . ..”
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.