State v. Friedman’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Sumy v. Schlossberg (1985), Rutherford v. Katzenberger (1983)
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 26 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 Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration · Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Webb · Hall v. State · Barry Properties v. Fick Bros. Roofing Co. · Belcher v. Government Employees Insurance
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there is no requirement in this context that the judgments be perfected against the husband and wife at the same instant”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] judgment obtained against both husband and wife arising out of a joint obligation may be satisfied by execution upon property held by the entireties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arbesman v. Winer · In Re Sumy“is designed to accomplish the dual purpose of compelling the defendant’s appearance in court as well as providing the plaintiff with security for the payment of his claim once it is established as being due. Philbin v. Thurn, 103 Md. 342, 351 , 63 A. 571, 574 (1906); see Belcher v. Gov’t Employees Ins. Co., 282 Md. 718, 720 , 387 A.2d 770, 772 (1978). This security is obtained when a levy is made because that act creates an inchoate lien that remains as such until a judgment of condemnation absolute is entered under Rule G55. Northwestern N. Ins. v. Wetherall, 267 Md. 378, 384 , 298 A.2d 1, 5 (1972); Union Trust Co. v. Biggs, 153 Md. 50, 57 , 137 A. 509, 513 (1927); W. Hodge & R. McLane, The Law of Attachment in Maryland § 192, at 171 (1895). One of the incidents of attachments on original process that is of particular importance in the case now before this Court is the doctrine of relation back. This doctrine recognizes that “[tjhrough the issue and laying of [an] attachment ... the [creditor] acquirefs] an inchoate lien ... [that] continues and binds the property attached, and abides the issue of the short note [primary] case____” Union Trust Co. v. Biggs, supra, 153 Md. at 57 , 137 A. at 513 ; see Gribble v. Stearman & Kaplan, Inc., 249 Md. 289, 294-95 , 239 A.2d 573, 576 (1968); Cockey v. Milne’s Lessee, 16 Md. 200, 206 (1860). Thus, “once [an attachment is] properly and validly acquired, it is retained to await the result of the action---- If the defendant appears ... th”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Butler v. Tilghman
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.