Cuffley v. Hammond’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties to the first ejectment suit. In that case, unlike Dundalk Holding Co. v. Easter, 195 Md. 488 (see p. 494), 73 A. 2d 877 , a plea upon equitable grounds was filed, and equitable considerations were therefore not irrelevant—at least in the absence of a showing that such a plea was wholly unfounded or frivolous. Whether the Circuit Court did or did not decide the ejectment suit correctly and whether or not it exercised its equitable jurisdiction therein properly (see Easter v. Dundalk Holding Co., 199 Md. 303 , 86 A. 2d 404 ; Dundalk Holding Co. v. Easter, 215 Md. 549 , 137 A. 2d 667 ), are questions which cannot now be relitigated. No appeal was taken in the first ejectment case, and it cannot be reviewed on this appeal. If it were a nullity, it might now be open to collateral attack; but in view of the court’s jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, we think that its order was not a nullity. The appellants are accordingly bound by the order in the original ejectment suit, whether it was erroneous or not. Christopher v. Sisk, 133 Md. 48 , 104 A. 355 ; Ugast v. La Fontaine, 189 Md. 227 , 55 A. 2d 705 ; Riggs v. Loweree, 189 Md. 437 , 56 A. 2d 152 .” Id. at 167-68.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Messall v. Merlands Club, Inc.