Dishman v. Dishman’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 1997
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Rutherford v. Katzenberger · King v. State Roads Commission of the State Highway Administration · 8 Md. App. 51 - White v. State · Harmon v. State · 56 Md. App. 613 - Lee v. State
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A careful review of the record reveals that, when the circuit court denied appellant’s post-trial motions, the court only articulated its finding with respect to appellant’s right to participate in the hearing on damages. The court did not articulate its reason for denying appellant’s motion to re vise____ Accordingly, we are unable to say whether the court acted properly in denying appellant’s motion to revise. Ordinarily, it is the responsibility of the parties to provide a proper record. We have previously recognized, however, that when “the record is incomplete through no apparent fault of the appealing party ... the purposes of justice will be advanced by permitting further proceedings in the cause.” ... [W]e do not think it was appellant’s fault that the lower court failed to articulate the reasons for its denial of appellant’s motion to revise, because the motion was denied without a hearing. We shall, therefore, remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. [Citation omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.