Webster v. Larmore’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably 23 Md. App. 337 - Wright v. Nugent (1974), Piper Rudnick LLP v. Hartz (2005)
25 state decisions
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 State v. Ficker · Pope v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. · Buchwald v. Buchwald · Watkins v. Barnes · Riddleberger v. Goeller
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny party who shall deem himself aggrieved by any decree, order, decision, or judgment of an Orphans’ Court may appeal therefrom to the circuit court for the county, or to the Superior Court of Baltimore City, in lieu of the direct appeal to the Court of Appeals provided in Section 64 of this Article. Any such appeal shall be heard de novo by said circuit court or Superior Court, as the case may be, and from the decision of any such court there shall be a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeals.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““From all decrees, orders, decisions and judgments, made by the orphans’ court, the party, who may deem himself aggrieved by such decree, order, decision or judgment, may appeal to the court of appeals.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““First, ... once a court determination is made, a personal representative is bound to make distribution in accordance with the order, and is fully protected by it. Second, an unrestricted right of appeal would subject the court to a myriad of collateral and incidental matters, and ‘would open the door to appeals presenting issues which might well be moot, or seeking opinions on abstract propositions.’ To these formerly articulated reasons, we also recognize that an unlimited right of appeal, in the hands of the executor or representative, could seriously deplete a small estate and might delay indefinitely the distribution of the estate assets to deserving heirs.””
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.