Himes v. Day’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 66 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[The] extension of the judgment was never intended to affect the finality of a judgment by default as to the question of the liability of the party against whom it is obtained. A reading of both Berwyn Fuel Co., supra, and Tasea Investment Corp., supra, leaves no doubt in the Court’s mind but that a judgment by default is a final determination as to liability. See also Abrams v. Gay Investment Co., 253 Md. 121 , 251 A. 2d 876 , Sheehi v. Saia, 250 Md. 198 , 242 A. 2d 174 (1968).” 2”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 44 Md. App. 547 - Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Webb · Maggin v. Stevens

2. ““We think the issue in this case pertaining to the vacating of the default judgment is controlled by Berwyn Fuel & Feed Co. v. Kolb, 249 Md. 475 , 240 A. 2d 239 (1968), wherein Horney, J. writing for the Court stated: ‘As was pointed out in Tasea Investment Corp. v. Dale, 222 Md. 474 , 160 A. 2d 920 (1960) and in Murray v. Fishman Construction Co., 241 Md. 538 , 217 A. 2d 357 (1966), the trial court, besides requiring the party, who moves to set aside an enrolled judgment, to prove that he is acting in good faith and with diligence and that he has a meritorious defense, should also require a showing of such facts and circumstances as will establish the fraud, mistake or irregularity allegedly used to obtain the judgment sought to be vacated.’ ” 3”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maggin v. Stevens

3. “Where more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates less than all the claims shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. Frankel