35 Md. App. 684 - Link v. Link’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2010
22 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 Dougherty v. Dougherty · Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips of Fairfax, Inc. v. Chillum Terrace Ltd. Partnership · Collier v. Collier · 15 Md. App. 503 - Colburn v. Colburn · Saltzgaver v. Saltzgaver
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant’s argument is based upon the theory that once an appeal has been noted the lower court is without jurisdiction to take any further action in the case until the appeal is decided, and that the court below was thus without jurisdiction to find him in contempt for violating the decree which was being appealed. The general rule, indeed, is that the noting of an appeal divests the lower court of jurisdiction to proceed with regard to the issue appealed. See, e. g., Lang v. Catterton, 267 Md. 268 , 297 A.2d 735 ; Visnich v. Wash. Sub. San. Comm., 226 Md. 589 , 174 A.2d 718 ; Collier v. Collier, 182 Md. 82 , 32 A.2d 469 . But like all rules, it is not without its exceptions. While there appears to be no Maryland decision squarely on the issue here, a number of cases are so closely related.... Presumably the lack of direct authority derives from the generally understood premise upon which we hold jurisdiction to be founded, i.e., the inherent authority of a court to enforce its decrees subject only to an express stay. * * * ... Maryland cases have uniformly held that a divorce court has jurisdiction to entertain [the wife’s] petition for alimony, child support and counsel fees, even though her petition is filed after an appeal from the grant or denial of a divorce has been noted____ Furthermore, the chancellor retains jurisdiction to modify alimony even after an appeal has been taken. Lewis v. Lewis, 219 Md. 313 , 149 A.2d 403 ; Hornstein v. Hornstein, 195 Md. 627 , 75 A.2d”
1 later decision 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.