Lohman v. Lohman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Generally.—Service of process may be made within this State or outside this State when authorized by the law of this State, by delivering to the person to be served a copy of the summons, complaint, and all other papers filed with it, or by mailing to the person to be served a copy of the summons, complaint, and all other papers filed with it by certified mail requesting: “Restricted Delivery—show to whom, date, address of delivery.” Service by certified mail under this Rule is complete upon delivery. Service outside the State may also be made in the manner prescribed by the court or prescribed by the foreign jurisdiction if reasonably calculated to give actual notice. (b) Evasion of Service.—When proof is made by affidavit that a defendant has acted to evade service, the court may order that service be made by mailing a copy of the summons, complaint, and all other papers filed with it to the defendant at the defendant’s last known residence and delivering a copy of each to a person of suitable age and discretion at the place of business, dwelling house, or usual place of abode of the defendant. (c) By Order of Court.—When proof is made by affidavit that good faith efforts to serve the defendant pursuant to section (a) of this Rule have not succeeded and that service pursuant to section (b) of this Rule is inapplicable or impracticable, the court may order any other means of service that it deems appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably calculated to give actual n”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. (1997) · Flanagan v. Department of Human Resources

2. “There can be no judgment nor decree in personam unless the defendant has been notified of the proceeding by proper summons, for the court has no jurisdiction over him until such service is properly accomplished, or is waived by a voluntary appearance by the defendant, either personally or through a duly authorized attorney. Harvey v. Slacum, 181 Md. 206, 210 , 29 A.2d 276, 278 (1942); 3 Poe’s Pleading and Practice § 62, at 59 (6th ed.1975). For this reason we have repeatedly held that defective service of process is a jurisdictional defect, Mooring v. Kaufman, 297 Md. 342, 355 , 466 A.2d 872, 878 (1983); Miles v. Hamilton, 269 Md. 708, 713 , 309 A.2d 631, 634 (1973); Keen v. Keen, 191 Md. 31, 36 , 60 A.2d 200, 203 (1948); McSherry v. McSherry, 113 Md. 395, 400 , 77 A. 653, 655 (1910)....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chapman v. Kamara

3. “If an annulment or a limited or absolute divorce has been granted by a court in another jurisdiction, a court in this State may award alimony to either party if: (1) the court in the other jurisdiction lacked or did not exercise personal jurisdiction over the party seeking alimony; and (2) the party seeking alimony was domiciled in this State at least 1 year before the annulment or divorce was granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 132 Md. App. 71 - Miles v. Stovall