Court of Appeals of Maryland· 7/13/1979
Washabaugh v. Washabaugh
Citations
- 404 A.2d 1027
- 285 Md. 393
- 1979 Md. LEXIS 247
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- there is “no constitutional limitation per se upon territorial differentiations in judicial organization or procedures”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Murphy, Smith, Digges, Eldridge, Orth, Cole, Davidson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Hornbeck v. Somerset County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1983-04-05· cited 130×
- Department of Transportation v. ArmacostCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1984-05-01· cited 96×
- Owens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2007-06-05· cited 70×
- Maryland Aggregates Ass'n v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1995-03-22· cited 53×
- Maryland Green Party v. Maryland Board of ElectionsCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2003-09-11· cited 44×
- Board of License Commissioners v. HaberlinCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1990-08-30· cited 41×
- Bienkowski v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2005-04-11· cited 40×
- Estep v. EstepCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1979-07-13· cited 38×
- Cardinell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1994-07-14· cited 37×
- Walbert v. WalbertCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1987-10-05· cited 33×
- Supermarkets General Corp. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1980-10-06· cited 30×
- Montgomery County v. McNeeceCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1987-11-24· cited 29×
- Committee for Responsible Development on 25th Street v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2001-03-01· cited 28×
- Mayor of Baltimore v. TheissCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1999-05-17· cited 17×
- United Wire, Metal & MacHine Health & Welfare Fund v. State of Maryland Deposit Insurance FundCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1986-07-28· cited 14×
- Dean v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1985-03-08· cited 12×
- Lamone v. CapozziCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2006-12-11· cited 12×
- Nader for President 2004 v. Maryland State Board of ElectionsCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2007-06-21· cited 9×
- Remson v. KrausenCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2012-06-28· cited 8×
- Phillips v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2017-06-28· cited 7×
Cites
40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 9,088×
- Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court· 1975-02-18· cited 4,350×
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court· 1973-04-23· cited 3,699×
- Loving v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1967-06-12· cited 2,147×
- Andresen v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1976-06-29· cited 1,306×
- Zablocki v. RedhailSupreme Court· 1978-01-18· cited 1,224×
- Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers PartySupreme Court· 1979-02-22· cited 844×
- Hayes v. MissouriSupreme Court· 1887-01-17· cited 460×
- Missouri v. LewisSupreme Court· 1880-04-12· cited 375×
- Oyama v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1947-11-17· cited 367×
- Ortwein v. SchwabSupreme Court· 1973-03-05· cited 364×
- Ortwein v. SchwabSupreme Court· 1973-04-02· cited 314×
- Salsburg v. MarylandSupreme Court· 1954-01-18· cited 266×
- Criminal Injuries Compensation Board v. GouldCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1975-01-16· cited 169×
- Mallett v. North CarolinaSupreme Court· 1901-05-20· cited 156×
- Andresen v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1975-01-10· cited 153×
- North v. RussellSupreme Court· 1976-06-28· cited 144×
- Ocampo v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1914-05-25· cited 127×
- United States v. American-Foreign Steamship Corp.Supreme Court· 1960-06-20· cited 115×
- Davidson v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1975-09-18· cited 109×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.