Pumphrey v. Grapes’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably Tasea Investment Corp. v. Dale (1960), Grantham v. Board of County Commissioners (1968)
43 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 Baltimore Luggage Co. v. Ligon · Bond v. Citizens National Bank · Vierling v. Holt · B. J. Linthicum's Sons, Inc. v. Stack
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is settled that a party to litigation, over whom the court has obtained jurisdiction, is charged with the duty of keeping aware of what actually occurs in the case and is affected with notice of all subsequent proceedings and that his actual knowledge is immaterial.’ ” ( 215 Md. at 576 , 138 A. 2d at 918 .)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re WET · Wooddy v. Wooddy““... The obligation to follow and consult the docket rests upon counsel, who are charged with notice.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the absence of a general or local rule of court, it is almost universally held that there is no requirement that notice be given. . . . The obligation to follow and consult the docket rests upon counsel, who are charged with notice. ... It is not shown that there is any applicable local rule in effect in Howard County. The most that can be claimed is that under the local practice it is customary to supply copies of opinions and orders to counsel. The deputy clerk testified that he usually did this by ‘Handing it to them in person. Rarely, I go out and deliver them. . ..’ There was no practice of mailing copies or giving formal notice.. .. We think there was no obligation upon the clerk to serve the copy, and the failure of counsel to learn of the court’s action and the entry of the judgment is not chargeable to him [the clerk] under the circumstances.” 215 Md. at 576-77 , 138 A. 2d at 918 (Emphasis supplied). (Citations omitted).”
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.