Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 Md. 350 - Lambros v. Brown

Lambros v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
July 2007
most recently cited

2 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably R.A. Ponte Architects, Ltd. v. Investors' Alert, Inc. (2004), Robb v. State (1948)

2 district · 34 state decisions

1401945195019601970198019902000decided

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 Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Huntington v. Attrill · Claflin v. Houseman · Brady v. Daly

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

  1. ““ ‘The fact that a State court derives its existence and functions from the State laws is no reason why it should not afford relief; because it is subject also to laws of the United States, and is just as much bound to recognize these as operative within the State as it is to recognize the State laws. The two together form one system of jurisprudence, which constitutes the law of the land for the State.... The disposition to regard the laws of the United States as emanating from a foreign jurisdiction is founded on an erroneous view of the nature and relations of the State and the Federal governments.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The question whether a statute of one State, which in some aspects may be called penal, is a penal law in the international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the courts of another State, depends upon the question whether its purpose is to punish an offence against the public justice of the State, or to afford a private remedy to a person injured by the wrongful act.””
    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.