Kalavan v. Hamburger’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1975
2 district · 3 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 Engler v. Garrett · Loughran v. Ramsburg · Diffenderffer v. Knoche · Helmik v. Pratt · Fry v. Platt.
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.
““Parol evidence may be admitted to clarify an indefinite description of land (Helmik v. Pratt, 153 Md. 685 , 139 A. 559 ), but it is never admissible to supply an omitted term or make definite and certain that which the parties themselves have left indefinite and uncertain.” (Emphasis supplied.) Kalavan v. Hamburger, 1940, 178 Md. 218, 229 , 13 A.2d 343, 348 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Winand v. Case
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.