Bienkowski v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2005
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Estep v. Estep
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I. Whether, in light of the wording of Article IV, § 22 of the Maryland Constitution, the Court of Special Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the merits of the appeal from the court en banc, and, in this connection, whether the notation in Estep v. Estep, 285 Md. 416 , 420-421 n. 4, 404 A.2d 1040 , 1042-1043 n. 4 (1979), is erroneous. “II. With regard to the ruling on the motion for a new trial, and if the Court of Special Appeals had jurisdiction to decide the merits of the appeal from the court en banc, whether the Court of Special Appeals should review the circuit judge’s decision for abuse of discretion, or should review solely the determination by the court en banc.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bienkowski v. Brooks
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.