Smith v. Lawler’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 2021
5 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 Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Hall v. State · Barry Properties v. Fick Bros. Roofing Co. · Haskell v. Carey · 44 Md. App. 398 - Scheve v. McPherson
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellants in the case sub judice were persons entitled to be named as defendants under the provisions of section 14-836(b)(1). When the appellees in the instant case failed to name appellants as defendants in the tax sale redemption case, they ultimately took the Property subject to the rights of appellants. Appellants retained the rights they had under the instrument of indebtedness. These rights are not limited to the right to intervene in the tax foreclosure cases but include all rights of holders of the instrument of indebtedness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The plaintiff may choose not to include as a defendant any of the persons enumerated in paragraph (1) of this subsection. However, the rights of any person not included as a defendant are not affected by the proceedings.”
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.