Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 193 Md. 177 - Berman v. Leckner

Berman v. Leckner’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Frederick Road Ltd. Partnership v. Sturm (2000), Liddy v. Lamone (2007)

57 state decisions

17019491950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Whalen v. Milholland · Bachrach v. Washington United Cooperative, Inc. · Young v. Cockman · Clarke v. Brunk · Sears v. Barker

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

  1. ““If a gift has reference to a future time when it is to operate as a transfer, it is only a promise without consideration, and cannot be enforced either at law or in equity.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t is an essential element of laches that the party charged with it should have had knowledge or the means of knowledge of the facts creating [the party’s] right or cause of action. Laches cannot be imputed to a party who has been justifiably ignorant of the facts creating [the party’s] right or cause of action, and has consequently failed to assert it. Thus, in suits alleging fraud, time begins to run, not from the perpetration of the fraud, but from its discovery. Mere lapse of time will not bar a defrauded party’s right to relief while [the party] remains ignorant of the fraud and has no knowledge of facts which would lead a [person] of ordinary prudence to its discovery.”
    2 later decisions 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.