Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 MDAPP 620 - Ford v. Douglas

Ford v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

6 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Harris v. Jones · Oaks v. Connors · Batson v. Shiflett · 93 Md. App. 422 - Lamb v. State · Breitenbach v. N.B. Handy Co.

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

  1. “... the primary goal of [ ] [statutory interpretation] is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. We first look to the text of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning. If the plain meaning of the statute is unambiguous, our inquiry into the legislature’s intent is complete. If, however, ambiguity exists, we turn to surrounding circumstances, such as legislative history and the purpose behind the statutory scheme as a whole, to determine legislative intent. 6”
    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.