Reddick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Mauzy v. Hornbeck (1979), Space Aero Products Co. v. R. E. Darling Co. (1965)
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 49 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 Albert v. Hamilton · Parr v. State ex rel. Cockey · Givner v. Cohen, Building Inspection Engineer · Rody v. Doyle · Lichtenberg v. Sachs
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There is a well established principle of law that a person who has full knowledge of pending litigation and that it affects, and will determine, his rights, and, who is entitled to appear, but who makes no effort to intervene as a party, and permits a conclusion thereof without objection, such party is concluded by the proceedings as effectually as if he were named on the record.” Reddick, supra at 30 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The decree of a court of equity, and not its opinion, is the instrument through which it acts in granting relief. Alleghany Corp. v. Alde. Corp., 173 Md. 472, 478 , 196 A. 418 . It is not necessary that a declaratory judgment be in any particular form, as long as the Court, by its decree, actually passes upon or adjudges the issues raised by the pleadings. Carter et ux. v. Nance, et ux. (Ky.) [ 304 Ky. 256 ], 200 S.W.2d 457, 459 . And, in this regard, a finding of fact by the Court, unless it be included in the decree, is not the decree of the Court. Employers Ins. Co. v. Brooks (Ala.), [ 250 Ala. 36 ], 33 So.2d 3, 5 . Alleghany Corp. v. Alde. Corp., supra, P. 480 of 173 Md.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The object of the rule that requires all necessary parties to be joined is to be sure that no one’s rights are adjudicated unless he has had his 'day in Court’; and that there will be a complete determination of the matters in dispute in one suit (this latter being subject to certain exceptions not here pertinent).” Reddick v. State, 213 Md. at 30 . 7 .”
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.