126 Md. App. 361 - Digges v. Digges’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner (2002), 132 Md. App. 207 - Innerbichler v. Innerbichler (2000)
35 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 Tracey v. Tracey · Petrini v. Petrini · 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston · Brodak v. Brodak · 109 Md. App. 1 - Wagner v. Wagner
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partly self-supporting; (2) the time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to enable that party to find suitable employment; (3) the standard of living that the parties established during their marriage; (4) the duration of the marriage; (5) the contributions, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (6) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (7) the age of each party; (8) the physical and mental condition of each party; (9) the ability of the party from whom alimony is sought to meet that party’s needs while meeting the needs of the party seeking alimony; (10) any agreement between the parties; (11) the financial needs and financial resources of each party, including: (i) all income and assets, including property that does not produce income; (ii) any award made under §§ 8-205 and 8-208 of this article; (iii) the nature and amount of the financial obligations of each party; and (iv) the right of each party to receive retirement benefits; and (12) whether the award would cause a spouse who is a resident of a related institution as defined in § 19-301 of the Health-General Article and from whom alimony is sought to become eligible for medical assistance earlier than would otherwise occur.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. his or her current physical condition; 2. his or her respective level of education; 3. the timing of any change in employment or financial circumstances relative to the divorce proceedings; 4. the relationship of the parties prior to the divorce proceedings; 5. his or her efforts to find and retain employment; 6. his or her efforts to secure retraining if that is needed; 7. whether he or she has ever withheld support; 8. his or her past work history; 9. the area in which the parties live and the status of the job market there; and 10. any other considerations presented by either party.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. age 2. mental and physical condition 3. assets 4. educational background, special training or skills 5. prior earnings 6. efforts to find and retain employment 7. the status of the job market in the area where the parent lives 8. actual income from any source 9. any other factor bearing on the parent’s ability to obtain funds for child support.”
3 later decisions 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.