Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 Md. App. 132 - Roginsky v. Blake-Roginsky

129 Md. App. 132 - Roginsky v. Blake-Roginsky’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner (2002), Solomon v. Solomon (2004)

41 state decisions

3401999200020102020decided

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 · 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston · Blaine v. Blaine · Turrisi v. Sanzaro · Doser v. Doser

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partially 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; and ' (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 [monetary] award made ...; (iii) the nature and amount of the financial obligations of each party; and (iv) the right of each party to receive retirement benefits ....”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability, the party seeking alimony cannot reasonably be expected to make substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting; or (2) even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress toward becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected, the respective standards of living of the parties will be unconscionably disparate.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[S]ubsection (2) requires a projection into the future, based on the evidence, beyond the point in time when a party may be expected to become self-supporting. It requires a projection to the point when maximum progress can reasonably be expected.”
    3 later decisions 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.