Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 Md. App. 543 - Smiley v. Atkinson

12 Md. App. 543 - Smiley v. Atkinson’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
4
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably State v. Bjorklund (2000), 21 Ariz. App. 465 - Castillo v. Industrial Commission (1974)

35 state decisions

14019711980199020002010decided

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 State, Use of Taylor v. Barlly · Peregoy v. Western Maryland Railroad · 8 Md. App. 468 - Raimondi v. State · Meldrum v. Kellam Distributing Co. · Sears v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

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

  1. “[A]ny other rule would be utterly unthinkable. Any party would then be able, at any time before final judgment, to bring the trial of a case to an abrupt halt by merely filing an order for appeal from any ruling of the court. Control of the judicial process would thus pass from the courts to the parties and their counsel. Mistrials and continuances would be available without limitation at the whim of any party. The trial court must have, and does have, the power to determine whether its jurisdiction to proceed has been ousted. Should any abuse of that power ever arise, such abuse could undoubtedly be corrected by prompt appellate action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]his general rule does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case upon the filing of an order for appeal from a nonappealable, interlocutory pretrial order. Our decisions stating and applying the general rule in no way indicate that the trial court automatically loses jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of an accused simply upon the filing of an appeal from a pretrial ruling of the court, which, as here, was not immediately reviewable on appeal as constituting a final judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““However, the critical element is the existence of something new or independent, which affords the defendant a fresh opportunity, of which he fails to avail himself, to avert the consequences of whatever negligence had become part of the circumstances existing when the fresh opportunity is presented.””
    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.