37 Md. App. 495 - McCartney v. Frost’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 2001
6 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 Preissman v. Crockett · Buckeye Development Corporation v. Brown & Shilling, Inc.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he price certainly appears to be inadequate, perhaps grossly so. But there are other factors. A sheriff in effect sells a quitclaim interest. He gives no assurance of good title. As the auctioneer put it in his testimony, at a sheriff’s sale he is selling ‘a pig in a bag’. Another factor was present here. Mrs. McCartney, apparently because of advice given to her by a lawyer she consulted, declined to permit inspection of the inside of the house.” Id. at 499 (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCartney v. Frost“(b) Notice of sale. The sheriff shall give notice of the time, place, and terms of the sale.”
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.