Chapman v. Kamara’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Cunninghame v. Cunninghame (2001), 157 Md. App. 676 - Francz v. Francz (2004)
2 district · 31 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 Hammond v. Lancaster · Tandra S. v. Tyrone W. · Harvey v. Slacum · Keen v. Keen · McSherry v. McSherry
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Of right. Upon timely motion, a person shall be permitted to intervene in an action: ... (2) when the person claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and the person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the ability to protect that interest unless it is adequately represented by existing parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“§ 6-105. Time of accrual of duties and powers; ratification. (a) When letters are issued. — The duties and powers of a personal representative commence upon the issuance of his letters, but when done in good faith, his acts occurring prior to appointment have the same effect as those occurring after. (b) Acts of others. — A personal representative may ratify and accept acts done on behalf of the estate by others if the acts would have been proper for a personal representative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1., the application for intervention must be timely; 2. the applicant must have an interest in the subject matter of the action; 3. the disposition of the action would at least potentially impair the applicant’s ability to protect its interest; and 4. the applicant’s interests must be inadequately represented by the existing parties.”
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.