Wells v. Price’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Smith v. Higinbothom (1946), State Ex Rel. Sonner v. Shearin (1974)
54 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 Di Giovanni v. Camden Fire Insurance · Hunt v. . Hunt · Mayor of Baltimore v. Gill · McDougall v. Huntingdon & Broad Top R. & C. Co. · Levin v. Hewes
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The conclusion there was that the repeal in question was accomplished and that, consequently, the charter provision is no longer operative. With this conclusion we cannot agree, for it is unsupported by both the common-law rule that a local statute shall not be held repealed except by clearly indicated purpose on the part of the legislature (Alexander v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 53 Md. 100, 104 ; State v. Falkenham, 73 Md. 463 , 21 A. 370 ); and by the fundamental rule of statutory construction that, in determining the legislative intent, the presumption is against repeal by implication.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"* * * this Court has already declared in clear language that the long uninterrupted and unvarying construction put upon a statute by administrative officials is entitled to great weight in law, and that courts should refrain from putting a different interpretation upon the statute except for the most potent and urgent reasons. Arnreich v. State, 150 Md. 91, 101 , 132 A. 430 ; American-Stewart Distillery Co. v. Stewart Distilling Co., 168 Md. 212 , 177 A. 473 ."”
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.