Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 Md. 32 - Diffendall v. Diffendall

Diffendall v. Diffendall’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2006 · most notably Deering v. Deering (1981), Unkle v. Unkle (1986)

33 state decisions

18019651970198019902000decided

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 Gordon v. Commissioners of Montgomery County · Partridge v. First Independent Church · Samet v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank of Baltimore · Abell v. Proprietors of the Green Mount Cemetery · Rayner v. Nugent

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

  1. “[In Md.Code Ann. (1974, 1980 Repl.Vol.) § 3-6A-01(e) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article,] “marital property” is defined as “all property, however titled, acquired by either or both spouses during the marriage.” (emphasis supplied). The term property, “when considered in a broad sense, is a term of wide and rather comprehensive signification .... It has been stated that the term embraces everything which has exchangeable value or goes to make up a man’s wealth — every interest or estate which the law regards of sufficient value for judicial recognition.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[TJhrough the ages, all civilized peoples have considered the final resting place of their dead as hallowed and sacred ground. Hence the Courts and legislative bodies have almost universally recognized that the ‘property’ or ‘estate’ which one acquires when he purchases a cemetery lot or a crypt is a ‘qualified’ property or estate. It is generally referred to, even though conveyed by a deed absolute in form, as an easement, privilege, or license for the sole purpose of sepulture as long as the property remains a cemetery. Partridge v. First Ind. Church, 39 Md. 631 ; Rayner v. Nugent, 60 Md. 515 . And such estates are generally not held for the purpose of barter or sale; consequently, they seldom have any commercial connotation.” (Emphasis added.)”
    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.