Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 Md. 334 - Soehnlein v. Pumphrey

Soehnlein v. Pumphrey’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
2
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Trotter v. Lewis (1946), Schneider v. Dumbarton Developers, Inc. (1985)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 66 state decisions

24019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 McKeever v. Washington Heights Realty Corp. · Neale v. Neales · James Taylor v. Nicholas Longworth · Semmes v. Worthington · Boehm v. Boehm

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

  1. ““ ‘The accepted doctrine is that in the ordinary case of contract for the sale of land, even though a certain period of time is stipulated for its consummation, equity treats the provision as formal rather than essential, and permits the purchaser who has suffered the period to elapse to make payments after the prescribed date, and to compel performance by the vendor notwithstanding the delay * * *. The doctrine is subject to qualifications, one of the most important of which is that the delay must not be willful and must not have worked any harm to the vendor.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]f a vendor reserves the right to forfeit the contract in the event of default in payments, but subsequently waives forfeiture for nonpayment at the stipulated time, he cannot suddenly change his mind and insist upon a forfeiture without giving to the vendee a reasonable notice of his intention to that effect. [ 183 Md. at 383 , 37 A.2d at 845 .]”
    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.