Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 Md. 164 - Tull v. Sterling

Tull v. Sterling’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2010

3 state decisions

2019181920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Brown v. Bragunier · Hummelshime v. Hirsch · County Commissioners v. Melvin · McEvoy v. Mayor C.C. of Balto. · Goldsborough v. Lloyd

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

  1. “It seems perfectly clear from these provisions, that appearance fees received by State's Attorneys were intended to be treated, like other fees, as items of compensation for official service, and as such, were required to be reported to the Comptroller and the excess over the prescribed salary paid annually into the State Treasury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The salary of the State's Attorney for Somerset County is not payable from fees, which he is authorized to charge and collect, but by direct payment from the county in equal quarterly installments.”
    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.