Preske v. Carroll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 state decisions

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

1. ““It is well established that any real estate dealer, or assessor, or any other person who has been engaged in business of such a character as to give him special knowledge of the subject, is competent to testify in reference to the value of land, if he has had an opportunity to form a correct opinion as to its value.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marder v. M. & C. C. of Baltimore · 83 Md. App. 180 - Melrod v. Melrod

2. ““Moreover, under the maxim that ‘he who seeks equity must do equity,’ no exceptant to a sale is entitled to obtain the aid of a court of equity unless he offers to pay a higher price for the property, or at least gives assurance that some other person would be likely to do so, even though there may be some irregularity in the conduct of the sale. In this case the appellant has given no assurance that he would bid on the property if sold again. He has made no offer to pay the costs of the proceedings or any expenses of the sale. He has made no promise to pay the interest or taxes in arrears. For example, in proceedings to vacate tax sales, the complainants are generally required to pay all taxes in arrears at the time of the sale, as well as all taxes subsequently due, as a condition precedent to the exercise of chancery jurisdiction. Steuart v. Meyer, 54 Md. 454, 468 . Likewise the court, in foreclosure proceedings, should not set aside a reported sale and order a resale as a mere experiment, but only when it is reasonably probable that a better price could be obtained at another sale.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Canaj, Inc. v. Baker and Division Phase III

3. “It is true that any act of an auctioneer, or the party selling, or of third parties as purchasers which prevents a fair, free and open sale, or which diminishes competition and stifles or chills the sale, is contrary to public policy and vitiates the sale. Smith v. Ullman, 58 Md. 183, 189 , 42 Am.Rep. 320 ; 5 Am.Jur., Auctions, sec. 26; 7 C.J.S., Auctions and Auctioneers, § 7, p. 1255.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gainesville Oil & Gas Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Texas