Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 Md. 63 - Sewell v. Sewell

Sewell v. Sewell’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
September 1999
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 1999 · most notably Heat & Power Corp. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (1990), Davis v. Davis (1977)

44 state decisions

2002001decided

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 Carter v. Carter · Townsend v. Townsend · Schwartz v. Schwartz · Danziger v. Danziger · Oliver v. Oliver

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

  1. “"On the record before the Chancellor and before us, we are not prepared to say that the Chancellor was clearly in error. Where he has not seen and heard the witnesses, the concluding portion of Rule 886 a of the Maryland Rules requiring that due allowance be made for the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses is not applicable, and the written testimony is as available to us as to the Chancellor; but the fact that he did not have the witnesses before him does not vitiate the first portion of that Rule which requires this Court to review a case tried by the court without a jury on both the law and the evidence, and prohibits setting aside the judgment of the lower court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous. See Oliver v. Oliver, 217 Md. 222 , 140 A.2d 908 ." Id. at 71.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““* * * A wife is not obliged to follow her husband unless he requests her to do so and such request is made in good faith, and the change of domicile would not impair her health or safety or unreasonably interfere with her comfort. :js”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““* * * Before the wife’s failure to follow the husband to a new domicile selected by him can serve as the basis for a finding that she has deserted her husband, a request that she join him * * * must be corroborated. * * *””
    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.