Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Md. App. 317 - Whittington v. Whittington

172 Md. App. 317 - Whittington v. Whittington’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2020

14 state decisions

60200720102020decided

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 · Maus v. State · 59 Md. App. 350 - Bangs v. Bangs · Solomon v. Solomon · 66 Md. App. 68 - Campolattaro v. Campolattaro

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 14 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 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 non-monetary, of each party to the wellbeing 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 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....”
    2 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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is a second-level fact ... that necessarily rests upon the court’s first-level factual findings on the factors [in FL § 11 — 106(b) ] that ... are relevant to all alimony determinations, and “all the factors ... necessary for a fair and equitable award”; and upon how much weight the court chooses to give to its various first-level factual findings.”
    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.