197 Md. App. 396 - Simard v. Burson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “[Rule BR6 c] is a restatement of the preexisting statutory law found in Code (1957), Art. 16 § 163 prior to its repeal by Chapter 36, § 1 of the Laws of 1962. Merryman v. Brem-mer, 250 Md. 1 , 241 A.2d 558 (1968). That section provided in pertinent part: “The court shall have full power and authority, on application by * * * petition of the trustee appointed by said court to sell real estate, to compel the purchaser thereof to comply with * * * the terms of such sale, by process of attachment or other execution suited to the case; or the said court * * * may direct the property purchased to be re-sold, at the risk of such purchaser, upon such terms as the court may direct; and in such case, if the proceeds of the resale, after payment of the expenses thereof and of all costs of proceeding, shall not be equal to the payment of the purchase money originally bid therefor, the court may order and direct the difference to be paid by the said purchaser, and enforce such order by execution.” Although the statute referred to sales by trustees appointed by the court, it has been held to apply to sales under the power contained in a mortgage. Bilbrey v. Strahorn, 153 Md. 491, 495 , 138 A. 343 (1927); Middendorf v. Baltimore Refrigerating and Heating Co., 117 Md. 17, 24 , 82 A. 1047 (1911); Aukam v. Zantzinger, 94 Md. 421, 427 , 51 A. 93 (1902). The statute remained unchanged from the time it was enacted as Code (1888), Art. 16, § 194, until its repeal. It was originally enacted as Chap”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 222 Md. App. 557 - Greentree Series V, Inc. v. Hofmeister

2. “If the purchaser defaults, the court, on application and after notice to the purchaser, may order a resale at the risk and expense of the purchaser or may take any other appropriate action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burson v. Simard