118 Md. App. 209 - Wilson v. Stanbury’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2019
17 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 Texas v. New Mexico · Connecticut National Bank v. Germain · Adams v. Manown · Kramer v. Globe Brewing Co. · Winmark Ltd. Partnership v. Miles & Stockbridge
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If parties in court were permitted to assume inconsistent positions in the trial of their causes, the usefulness of courts of justice would in most cases be paralyzed; the coercive process of law, available only between those who consented to its exercise, could be set at naught at all.... It may accordingly be laid down as a broad proposition that one who, without mistake induced by the opposite party, has taken a particular position deliberately in the course of litigation, must act consistently -with it; one cannot play fast and loose.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Generally speaking, a party will not be permitted to occupy inconsistent positions or to take a position in regard to a matter which is directly contrary to, or inconsistent with, one previously assumed by him, at least where he had, or was chargeable with, full knowledge of the facts and another will be prejudiced by his action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are especially cognizant ... that the doctrine of judicial estoppel has evolved to protect the courts from just the type of egregious conduct that occurred, on appellant’s behalf, during the ... Queen case and the instant case. If we were to hold that the doctrine did not apply under these circumstances, it would be hard to imagine when it would be applicable.”
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.