81 Md. App. 124 - Seidel v. Panella’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. “First, they [appellants] argue that the affidavit delineating efforts to locate the appellants was defective both in form and substance. The Panellas’ counsel filed the affidavit which purportedly recounts Mr. Panella’s not the affiant’s, effort to locate appellants. Not until September 28, 1988, in response to appellants’ motion to vacate was Mr. Panella’s own affidavit filed. This subsequent affidavit was, however, untimely. The appellants further claim that merely checking area phonebooks was not an adequate attempt to discover their correct address. Arnold, 282 Md. 375 , 384 A.2d 729 . Appellants note that their current address appears on Worcester County Sanitary District records and Ocean City Water Department records. Appellants also state that, pursuant to recorded covenants, the property is subject to an annual maintenance fee collected by the Montego Bay Civic Association whose records bear appellants’ current mailing address. These three sources, appellants claim, should have been examined during the title search required by Tax-Proper ty Art., § 14-889(a)(l)(i) and would have provided the correct information. Appellants also contend that the requisite mailing of the publication order was not accomplished. Tax-Property Art., § 14-839(a)(4). In turn, no affidavit certifying compliance with this requirement was filed. Tax-Property Art., § 14-839(a)(4).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 91 Md. App. 21 - Kennedy v. Cummings

2. “[t]he sum of appellants’ allegations, if proven to the satisfaction of the trial court, is sufficient to constitute constructive fraud.” Id. 7 . At a minimum, appropriate evidence would consist of the plat designated”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 99 Md. App. 106 - Slattery v. Friedman