the order vacating the “order of default.” The rule governing entry of orders or judgments in the orphans’ court provides: “After determination of an issue, ... the court shall direct the entry of an appropriate order or judgment.” Md. Rule 6-171(a). Rule 6-171(a) does not require that each order be set forth on its own separate document. Instead, “in orphans’ courts, an order is a paper writing that is filed in the estate file.” Anthony v. Clark, 335 Md. at 594, 644 A.2d 1070. The hearing sheet clearly stated that the motion had been granted, it included the judge’s signature, it was filed in the estate docket, and it was properly docketed by the Register of Wills. The orphans’ court did more than enough to achieve the entry of that interlocutory order. See id. at 592, 644 A.2d 1070 (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, on September 28, 2016 (for
holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order holding that a found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry holding that docket entry could not be used to show that appellants untimely amended answer was filed with permission of the trial court in order to defeat summary judgment holding that citys policy need not be unconstitutional per se but need only cause a constitutional violation holding that a docket entry in the orphans court need not summarize the contents of the order but need only show that an order was filed