Lickle v. Boone’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Davis v. Slater (2004), Collopy v. Newark Eye and Ear Infirmary (1958)
45 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 Williams v. Morgan · Dougherty v. Dougherty · Elms v. Elms · Wightman v. Evanston Yaryan Co. · Preston v. Poe
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Article 5. Common law and statutes of England applicable; trial by jury; property derived under charter granted to Lord Baltimore. "(a) That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England ... and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and have been introduced, used and practiced by the Courts of Law or Equity; ... subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In 1857 Parliament passed the Matrimonial Causes Act, which transferred divorce jurisdiction from' the ecclesiastical courts to the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. That Act gave every husband seek ing a divorce the right to make the co-respondent a party, and empowered the court upon a wife’s petition to order the co-respondent to be made a party. 20 & 21 Victoria, Ch. 85, Sec. 28. In 1907 Parliament enacted that any co-respondent charged with adultery in a suit for divorce has the right to intervene in the suit. In the United States some of the Legislatures have passed statutes giving co-respondents in divorce suits the right to intervene. For example, the New York Legislature in 1899 provided that any co-respondent has the right to appear and defend and to demand trial by jury, and in case the charge against him is not proved he is entitled to judgment for costs. [Case citations omitted]. But in Maryland there is no statute authorizing a co-respondent in a divorce suit to intervene” (at page 582-583).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Court cannot enact legislation, but can only administer justice according to existing law.”
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.