Bruce v. Dyer’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably PaineWebber Inc. v. East (2001), Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc. (2003)
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 59 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 James v. Prince George's County · State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. LiMauro · Slice v. Carozza Properties, Inc. · Kasten Construction Co. v. Rod Enterprises, Inc. · Beall v. Beall
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Property settlement agreements, as all other contracts scrutinized under the law of this State, are subject to interpretation in light of the settled and oft-repeated principles of objective construction. Orkin v. Jacobson, 274 Md. 124, 128 , 332 A.2d 901, 903 (1975). ‘The written language embodying the terms of an agreement will govern the rights and liabilities of the parties, irrespective of the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the contract, unless the -written language is not susceptible of a clear and definite understanding....’ Slice v. Carozza Prop., Inc., 215 Md. 357, 368 , 137 A.2d 687, 693 (1958). ‘[W]here a contract is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction, and it must be presumed that the parties meant what they expressed.’ Kasten Constr. [Co.] v. Rod Enterprises, [Inc.], 268 Md. 318, 328 , 301 A.2d 12, 18 (1973); Little v. First Federated Life [Ins. Co.], 267 Md. 1, 6 , 296 A.2d 372, 375 (1972); Devereux v. Berger, 253 Md. 264, 269 , 252 A.2d 469, 471 (1969). Thus, when interpreting a separation agreement, this Court is ‘bound to give effect to the plain meaning of the language used.’ Woodham v. Woodham, [ 235 Md. 356 ,] 360, 201 A.2d [674,] 676 [(1964)]; Sands v. Sands, 252 Md. 137 , [142-43,] 249 A.2d 187 [, 190-91] (1969).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“No corporeal estate, leasehold or freehold, or incorporeal interest in land may be assigned, granted, or surrendered, unless it is in writing signed by the party assigning, granting, or surrendering it, or his agent lawfully authorized by writing, or by act and operation of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he tenancy by which husband and wife at common law hold land conveyed or devised to them by a single instrument which does not require them to hold it by another character of tenancy. The title of both husband and wife arises out of the instrument, whether deed, devise or gift, by virtue of which they become seized of the estate. A tenancy by the entirety cannot be created unless the four essential common law unities, namely, interest, title, time and possession, co-exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.