Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 Md. 107 - Marshall v. Marshall

Marshall v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
8
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Winkel v. Winkel (1940), Kephart v. Kephart (1951)

8 federal appellate · 58 state decisions

170193319401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Dickey v. Dickey · Emerson v. Emerson · Hood v. Hood · Demuth v. Old Town Bank · Blades v. Szatai

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

  1. ““ . . . Preliminary to an execution on a decree like the one now under consideration, a proceeding to ascertain the amount of the unpaid installments, and the existence of the conditions upon which its enforcement is dependent, would be essential. . . . Until the passage of an order determining the amount due and authorizing execution, the decree would not become a lien on the defendant’s property, but would only have the effect of an adjudication of liabilities thereafter maturing at stated periods. . . . ” Marshall v. Marshall, 164 Md. 107, 116 , 163 A. 874, 877 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is contended that the appellant has lost by laches her right to enforce the decree under which she claims. The absence of the defendant from the state, and his inability to make the payments, during most of the period since they were discontinued, sufficiently account for the delay in the enforcement of the decree, and, since it finally adjudicated the defendant’s liability, he could not be prejudiced in reference to it by the subsequent lapse of time.””
    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.