Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 107 Md. App. 677 - Maxwell v. Ingerman

107 Md. App. 677 - Maxwell v. Ingerman’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently August 2021

16 state decisions

601996200020102020decided

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 Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. · Houghton v. County Comm'rs of Kent Co. · Garcia v. Wash · Young Radiator Co. v. Celotex Corp.

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “From a jurisprudential perspective, there is much to be said for the view that the initial appeal, timely filed, suffices to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court over the entire case____ Upon the filing of that appeal, all issues become open for potential consideration, limited only by standing and preservation impediments—e.g., raising the issue below, presenting a sufficient record, and properly raising the issue in the briefs____ The time requirement for the initial appeal has far greater significance and thus justifies a jurisdictional mantle. The true finality of the judgment is affected. That is not so much the case with cross-appeals, for once one appeal is timely noted, the parties and, constructively, the world, know that the judgment is in some potential jeopardy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is no dispute that, while appellant’s counsel attested that he had promptly served a copy of the notice of appeal, in fact he did not. The clerk was misled by the certificate, for had there been no certificate, the clerk would, have been obliged to reject the notice. Md. Rule 1-323.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “within ten days after the date on which the first notice of appeal was filed or within any longer time otherwise allowed by this Rule.” The record does not demonstrate that the Morses filed a notice of a cross-appeal in this case. Accordingly,”
    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.