Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 Md. 216 - Chew v. DeVries

Chew v. DeVries’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

8 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2016

8 district · 10 state decisions

60196519701980199020002010decided

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 Sagner v. Glenangus Farms, Inc. · Hercules Powder Co. v. Harry T. Campbell Sons Co. · Brewer v. Sowers · William Danzer & Co. v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · Mattingly Lumber Co. v. Equitable Building & Savings Ass'n

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

  1. ““There is a well-established rule of contractual construction that where two provisions of a contract are seemingly in conflict, they must, if possible, be construed to effectuate the intention of the parties as collected from the whole instrument, the subject matter of the agreement, the circumstances surrounding its execution, and its purpose and design. Lumber Co. v. Bldg. & Savings Assn., 176 Md. 403 ; Sagner v. Glenangus Farms, 234 Md. 156, 167 ; 17 A C.J.S. Contracts § 309 (with a long line of decisions collected in n. 95); 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 267. And, if a reconciliation can be effected by a reasonable interpretation, such interpretation should be given to the apparently repugnant provisions, rather than nullify any. 17A C.J.S. Contracts § 309, n. 96; 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 267.” Id'. 240 Md. at 220-21 , 213 A. 2d at 744 . (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “There is a well-established rule of contractual construction that where two provisions of a contract are seemingly in conflict, they must, if possible, be construed to effectuate the intention of the parties as collected from the whole instrument, the subject matter of the agreement, the circumstances surrounding its execution, and its purpose and design. And, if a reconciliation can be effected by a reasonable interpretation, such interpretation should be given to the apparently repugnant provisions, rather than nullify any.”
    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.