Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 MD 80 - Ellicott v. Warford

Ellicott v. Warford’s Empirical Analysis

1853

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 1984
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1984

8 state decisions

3018531860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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

  1. ““The appointment of a receiver does not determine any right or affect the title of either party in any manner whatever. He is the officer of the court, and truly the hand of the court. His holding is the holding of the court from him from whom the possession was taken. He is appointed on behalf of all parties, and not of the plaintiff or of one defendant only. His appointment is not to oust any party of his right to the possession of the property, but merely to retain it for the benéfit of the party who may ultimately appear to be entitled to it.” (Ellicott v. Warford, 4 Md. 85 ; High Receivers, pp. 2, 3.)”
    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.