44 Md. App. 398 - Scheve v. McPherson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
8 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Dabkowski (1986), Alleco Inc. v. Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc. (1995)
8 district · 46 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 Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. Gould · Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. v. Los Angeles Rams Football Co. · First Federated Commodity Trust Corp. v. Commissioner of Securities · Madison v. State · Brashears v. Collison
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is a breach of legal or equitable duty which, irrespective of the moral guilt of the fraud feasor, the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate public or private confidence, or to injure public interests. Neither actual dishonesty of purpose nor intent to deceive is an essential element of constructive fraud.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The purpose and effect of striking the December decree, therefore, was to reinstate appellees’ right to redeem the property, a right that had been terminated by the stricken decree. The March order clearly represented a determination by the court that appellees were entitled to redeem the property, that that right should not be foreclosed, and that, if appellees followed the statutory procedure for redemption, they would be entitled to own and possess the property to the exclusion of appellants. The mere striking of the December decree, reviving a right of redemption that could then be exercised merely by paying the amounts fixed by the court, was the one and final act that adjudicated the rights of the parties and, save for appellate review, terminated the justiciable controversy among them. It therefore constituted a final and appeal-able order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Quillens v. Moore“"In directing dismissal of this appeal we are not to be understood as either approving or disapproving the Court of Special Appeals’ conclusion that the revisory powers granted a circuit court by Maryland Rule 625 do not extend to cases involving foreclosure of the right of redemption. However, should the question arise again its resolution should be considered in light of our ruling in Owen v. Freeman, 279 Md. 241 , 367 A.2d 1245 (1977),[ 6 ] concerning Rule 625 as it relates to Dismissal Rule 528 L of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, which was decided subsequent to the ruling of the Court of Special Appeals in this case.” Suburban Dev. Corp., 281 Md. at 169 n.1, 377 A. 2d at 1164 n.1 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Haskell v. Carey
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.