12 Md. App. 117 - Eberly v. Eberly’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2006
10 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 Dougherty v. Dougherty · Hood v. Hood · Collier v. Collier · Timanus v. Timanus · Waters v. Waters
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.
““* * * [I]n determining an award of alimony * * * the court should consider the husband’s wealth and earning capacity, the assets and income of the wife, the station in life of- the parties, their age, physical condition, and ability to work, the length of time the parties lived together, the circumstances leading up' to the divorce, and the fault which destroyed the home. * * * The husband’s overall financial ability to support (and not merely his current income), and the wife’s need for support are controlling factors. * * *” (emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * It is clear that ‘the [alimony] award should not be disturbed unless the chancellor’s discretion was arbitrarily used or his judgment was clearly wrong.’ Blumenthal v. Blumenthal, 258 Md. 534, 541 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.