129 Md. App. 554 - Long v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner (2002), 132 Md. App. 207 - Innerbichler v. Innerbichler (2000)
2 district · 36 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 · Deering v. Deering · Harper v. Harper · Alston v. Alston · 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Factors in determining amount and method of payment or terms of transfer.—The court shall determine the amount and the method of payment of a monetary award, or the terms of the transfer of the interest in the pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, or both, after considering each of the following factors: (1) the contributions, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (2) the value of all property interests of each party; (3) the economic circumstances of each party at the time the award is to be made; (4) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (5) the duration of the marriage; (6) the age of each party; (7) the physical and mental condition of each party; (8) how and when specific marital property or interest in the pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, was acquired, including the effort expended by each party in accumulating the marital property or the interest in the pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan, or both; (9) the contribution by either party of property described in § 8-201(e)(3) of this subtitle to the acquisition of real property held by the parties as tenants by the entirety; (10) any award of alimony and any award or other provision that the court has made with respect to family use personal property or the family home; and (11) any other factor that the court considers necessary or appropriate to consider ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The judgment here defeats the purpose of the monetary award, which is to achieve equity between the spouses where one spouse has a significantly higher percentage of the marital assets title [in] his name.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Current Law: In an action for annulment or divorce, after the court determines which property is marital property and the value of that property, the court may transfer an ownership interest in specified types of marital property and/or grant a monetary award. The transfer or grant is an adjustment of the equity of the parties regarding the marital property, regardless of an alimony award. Generally, the court may not transfer the ownership of personal or real property from one party to the other. However, the court is authorized to transfer ownership of an interest in a pension, retirement, profit sharing, or deferred compensation plan from one party to either or both parties. Background: Some jurisdictions in the region allow a court to transfer real property or the interest in real property from one party to another in a divorce or annulment action. (Emphasis added.) The Floor Report for S.B.353 is also noteworthy. Titled “Family Law — Property Disposition in Annulment or Di vorce — Transfer of Real Property,” the Short Summary stated: “This Bill Authorizes the Court in a Divorce Action to Transfer Ownership of Jointly Owned Real Property Used as the Parties’ Principal Residence or to Authorize One Party to Purchase the Other’s Interest.” (Emphasis added.) The Bill Summary was virtually identical to the text of the Fiscal and Policy Note. As we have seen, like F.L. § 8-205, neither the Floor Report nor the Fiscal and Policy Note expressly stated that the ability to transfe”
1 later decision 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.