Biro v. Schombert’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Clark v. Elza (1979), East v. Gilchrist (1982)
2 district · 116 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 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Wetzel · Castor v. United States · Duncan and Smith v. State · Eastgate Associates v. Apper
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[t]he jurisdiction of this Court, and the Court of Special Appeals, is determined by constitutional provisions, statutory provisions and rules; jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties.' Consequently, `this Court will dismiss an appeal sua sponte when it notices that appellate jurisdiction is lacking.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As clearly indicated by the above language, a trial court is authorized to enter a final appealable judgment under the rule only where there are multiple claims and the judgment disposes of at least one of those claims. An order which disposes of only part of a single claim cannot be made final under Rule 605 a. Diener Enterprises v. Miller, supra, 266 Md. at 554-556 [ 295 A.2d 470 ]; Harford Sands, Inc. v. Levitt & Sons, 27 Md.App. 702 , 343 A.2d 544 , cert. denied, 276 Md. 744 (1975).” 285 Md. at 294 , 402 A.2d at 74 .”
2 later decisions 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.