33 Md. App. 589 - Perryman v. Suburban Development Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1994
10 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 Baltimore Nat Bank v. State Tax Commission of Maryland · Brashears v. Collison · Ginnavan v. Silverstone · Thomas v. Kolker · Hamilton v. Hamilton
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The equity court, upon the filing of a bill to foreclose the right of redemption, shall have full equity jurisdiction to give full and complete relief under the provisions of this subtitle, in accordance with the general equity jurisdiction and practice of the said court, and with all provisions of all laws and rules of court relating to the equity courts of the county in which the property is located, except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, to bar all right of redemption and to foreclose all alienations and descents of the property occurring prior to the decree of the court as hereinafter provided....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simms v. Scheve“We recognize that in proceedings for the foreclosure of rights of redemption of property purchased at tax sales, the decree pro confesso procedure has been utilized. The fallacy of appellee’s argument is, however, that the decree pro confesso procedure is not required to be followed in this type of case and, indeed, it would appear to be unnecessary. [Id. 33 Md.App. at 598 , 365 A.2d 570 (citations omitted).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simms v. Scheve“For a period of thirty days after the entry of a judgment, or thereafter pursuant to motion filed within such period, the court shall have revisory power and control over such judgment. After the expiration of such period the court shall have revisory power and control over such judgment, only in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simms v. Scheve
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.