45 Md. App. 144 - Schaefer v. Heaphy’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2007
13 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 Levering v. Levering · Bantz v. Bantz · Bonaparte v. State · Bixler v. Sellman · Crandall, Exec. v. Crandall
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Powers — The court may conduct judicial probate, direct the conduct of a personal representative, and pass orders which may be required in the course of the administration of an estate of a decedent____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Section] 8-108(a) provides, in relevant part: “Upon the expiration of six months from the date of the first appointment of a personal representative, the personal representative shall pay the claims allowed against the estate in the order of priority prescribed in § 8-105____ A person with a valid unbarred claim or with a valid unbarred judgment who has not been paid may petition the [orphans’] court for an order directing the personal representative to pay the claim to the extent that funds of the estate are available for payment.” (Emphasis supplied.) ... A creditor whose claim has been disallowed by the personal representative may litigate the issue in the orphans’ court; and, if he chooses to do so and is successful, the order of that tribunal is binding upon and enforceable against the personal representative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A creditor whose claim has been disallowed by the personal representative may litigate the issue in the [0]rphans’ [C]ourt; and, if he chooses to do so and is successful, the order of that tribunal is binding upon and enforceable against the personal representative. The deficiency in the authority of the [0]rphans’ [C]ourt ... which effectuated its lack or loss of "jurisdiction” has now been overcome. Schaefer , although holding that the Orphans' Court had jurisdiction over litigation of a personal represent ative’s claim, is distinguishable. In the instant case, appellee did not file a notice of disallowance of appellant’s claim; therefore, the claim never was disallowed, preventing litigation of the claim’s validity in the Orphans’ Court.”
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.