Harrison v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Reier v. State Department of Assessments & Taxation (2007), 111 Md. App. 124 - Yonce v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (1996)
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 Baskett v. United States · Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks · Ogletree v. Ohio · Head v. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry · Ramsay, Scarlett & Co. v. Comptroller of Treasury
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the Maryland cases and rules describe generally the importance of the court’s mandate and the procedures to be followed by the trial court—ie., “in accordance with the tenor and direction thereof’—they have not clearly described exactly what comprises the complete “order” or “judgment” of the court. As we construe these rules, and the cases discussing them, it is apparent that, in Maryland, the opinion, at the very least, may be an integral part of the appellate court’s order or mandate when that order or mandate provides for a remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. Moreover, when it is apparent from the opinion itself that a simplified “order” or mandate, e.g., “Judgment Reversed,” is ambiguous, then the opinion may be referred to and considered an integral part of that mandate. There may be, as we discuss infra, many types of unitary judgments or mandates, as opposed to multiple, severable parts of judgments, in which such a “Judgment Reversed” order or mandate would not be ambiguous and there would be no need to refer to the opinion. Generally, however, any direction in an order or mandate that proceedings on remand are to be consistent with the opinion would necessarily require the opinion to be considered as an integral part of the judgment. This position is consistent with the law of mandates as stated by most, but not all, of the few foreign jurisdictions that have squarely addressed the issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even absent a statute permitting the correction of judgments, i.e., mandates, an appellate court has always had the inherent power to correct its mandates”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.