165 Md. App. 591 - Simonds v. Simonds’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2020
23 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 Jacobellis v. Ohio · Tracey v. Tracey · Petrini v. Petrini · State v. Snowden · Alston v. Alston
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 8-214. Award of reasonable and necessary expenses. (a) Definition. — In this section, “reasonable and necessary expense” includes: (1) suit money; (2) counsel fees; and (3) costs. (b) Award authorized. — At any point in a proceeding under this subtitle, the court may order either party to pay to the other party an amount for the reasonable and necessary expense of prosecuting or defending the proceeding. (c) Considerations by court. — Before ordering the payment, the court shall consider: (1) the financial resources and financial needs of both parties; and (2) whether there was substantial justification for prosecuting or defending the proceeding. (d) Lack of substantial justification and good cause.— Upon a finding by the court that there was an absence of substantial justification of a party for prosecuting or defending the proceeding, and absent a finding by the court of good cause to the contrary, the court shall award to the other party the reasonable and necessary expense of prosecuting or defending the proceeding....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“No case ... requires that indefinite alimony be granted simply because the dependent spouse is able to show that his or her income is only thirty percent of that of the non-dependent spouse. And, indefinite alimony is not necessarily required simply because there exists a gross disparity of income. But when indefinite alimony is denied and such a disparity exists, it is error to deny the request without explicitly discussing the disparity issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Boemio v. Boemio
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.