46 Md. App. 452 - Smith v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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 county council for Montgomery County is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to levy and cause to be collected from the property owners at the time of the county tax levy... within the said villages known as 'Friendship Heights’ and 'The Hills’ ... ten cents on each one hundred dollars of the assessable value of the real and personal prop erty in said villages ... to be paid over by said county council to the treasurer of the committee .. . and said county council shall also order and have paid over to said treasurer the proportion of the county road tax to be levied and collected in the same manner as though the said villages of 'Friendship Heights’ and 'The Hills’ were an incorporated town, and said villages shall, for the purpose, be considered by said county council as an incorporated town of said county; all of said funds to be used directly by or through said .committee, exclusively for opening, improving, widening, maintaining, 'repairing and lighting the streets, roads, lanes, alleys, sidewalks, parking, drainage, sewerage, sanitation and other village improvements, and for furnishing police and ñire protection, clerical and other public service, including the removal of ashes, garbage and other refuse and the disposal thereof.” 3 (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Edwards

2. ““... [CJourts have adopted a common fund doctrine under which counsel fees may be awarded where a taxpayer’s suit has resulted in the creation of a fund for the benefit of the taxpayers. See, e.g., Nance v. Town of Oyster Bay, 54 Misc.2d 274 , 282 N.Y.S.2d 324 (1967), aff’d, 30 App.Div.2d 918, 293 N.Y.S.2d 704 (1968); Weiss v. Bruno, 83 Wash.2d 911 , 523 P.2d 915 (1974); Annot. 89 A.L.R.3d 690 (1979). The doctrine is based on the idea that, where a taxpayer has gone into court taking the risk of litigation upon himself, and has thereby conferred a benefit upon other taxpayers similarly situated, it is equitable to allow counsel fees out of the recovery. This doctrine has been recognized in Maryland in Terminal Freezing and Heating Co. v. Whitelock, 120 Md. 408 , 87 A. 820 (1913) and Estate of Leiman, 32 Md. 225 , 3 Am.Rep. 132 (1870), although these cases did not involve recovery by taxpayers. 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 57 Md. App. 248 - Bowling v. Brown