Walbert v. Walbert’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably United Parcel Service, Inc. v. People's Counsel (1994), Rohrbeck v. Rohrbeck (1989)
51 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 Houghton v. County Comm'rs of Kent Co. · Yarema v. Exxon Corp. · Houghton v. COUNTY COM'RS OF KENT CTY. · Loveday v. State · Washabaugh v. Washabaugh
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.
““Section 22. Reservation of points or questions for consideration by court in banc. “Where any Term is held, or trial conducted by less than the whole number of said Circuit Judges, upon the decision or determination of any point, or question, by the Court, it shall be competent to the party, against whom the ruling or decision is made, upon motion, to have the point, or question reserved for the consideration of the three Judges of the Circuit, who shall constitute a court in banc for such purpose; and the motion for such reservation shall be entered of record, during the sitting, at which such decision may be made; and the several Circuit Gourts shall regulate, by rules, the mode and manner of presenting such points, or questions to the Court in banc, and the decision of the said Court in banc shall be the effective decision in the premises, and conclusive, as against the party, at whose motion said points, or questions were reserved; but such decision in banc shall not preclude the right of Appeal, or writ of error to the adverse party, in those cases, civil or criminal, in which appeal, or writ of error to the Court of Appeals may be allowed by Law. The right of having questions reserved shall not, however, apply to trials of Appeals from judgments of the District Court, nor to criminal cases below the grade of felony, except when the punishment is confinement in the Penitentiary; and this Section shall be subject to such provisions as may hereafter be made by Law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We have repeatedly stated that the timeliness of an order of appeal is ‘jurisdictional,’ and that if an appeal is not filed within the prescribed time, ‘the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.’ Houghton v. County Comm’rs of Kent Co., 305 Md. 407, 413 , 504 A.2d 1145 (1986), and cases there cited. See also State Highway Admin, v. Kee, 309 Md. 523 , 528 n. 2, 525 A.2d 637 (1987) (‘Appealability is jurisdictional’). Whether this means that the order of an appellate court, where the appellate court incorrectly or inadvertently assumes jurisdiction over an untimely appeal and decides the merits, is void and is to be treated as a nullity for all purposes, is a matter which we need not explore in the present case. It is sufficient to point out that when a case reaches this Court, we will, notice sua sponte the untimeliness of an earlier order of appeal in the same case, regardless of whether the issue had been raised by a party or considered by the trial court or by an intermediate appellate court. See generally, e.g., State Highway Admin, v. Kee, supra, 309 Md. at 528 , 525 A.2d 637 ; Blucher v. Elstrom, 309 Md. 458 , 524 A.2d 1235 (1987); Yarema v. Exxon Corp., 305 Md. 219, 231 , 503 A.2d 239 (1986); Snowden v. Baltimore Gas & Electric, 300 Md. 555, 560 , 479 A.2d 1329 (1984); Highfield Water Co. v. Wash. Co. San., 295 Md. 410, 414 , 456 A.2d 371 (1983); King v. State Roads Comm’n, 294 Md. 236, 240-241 , 449 A.2d 390 (1982).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) Generally. When review by a court in banc is permitted by the Maryland Constitution, a party may have a judgment or determination of any point or question reviewed by a court in banc by filing a notice for in banc review. Issues are reserved for in banc review by making an objection in the manner set forth in Rules 2-517 and 2-520. Upon the filing of the notice, the Circuit Administrative Judge shall designate three judges of the circuit, other than the judge who tried the action, to sit in banc.”
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.