Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Md. 489 - Winkel v. Winkel

Winkel v. Winkel’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
9
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 79 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably Lopez v. Lopez (1955), Kephart v. Kephart (1951)

5 federal appellate · 79 state decisions

21019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Wetmore v. Markoe · Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · Sistare v. Sistare · Audubon v. Shufeldt · Matilda Von Ellert Sistare v. Horace Randall Sistare

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

  1. “[T]he enforcement of the collection of the moneys due might continue to be by way of scire facias, attachment, execution or by other equitable remedies if within the period of limitations, but it seems to the court that, after the expiration of one year from the time the payment of any installment of permanent alimony fell due and remained unpaid, there should be a bar to a proceeding for contempt against the contemnor in respect of any such default in payment. In the opinion written for the court by Judge Sloan in Kalben v. King, [ 166 Md. 632 , 172 A. 80 (1934)], there is a somewhat similar suggestion, and its adoption, as here stated, is supported by practical considerations in the administration of justice and by the fact that alimony is founded in the necessity, and the design, for current maintenance and support of the wife and children. The practice in England affords a basis for adoption. As here stated and limited the rule is subject, however, to exceptions created by special circumstances, as absence of the husband from the jurisdiction or some other particular reasons shown. [Winkel v. Winkel, supra, at 506-07, 15 A.2d at 922 .]”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he doctrine is founded in an equality of right and obligation, and its enforcement is indifferent to whether the change is in the relief of one spouse, so long as the rights of the other are not denied. It is patent that of its nature alimony is in amount subject to variations from time to time as the circumstances, needs, and pecuniary condition of the parties change.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““From a review of the decisions of this Court, it does appear that the effect of its decisions is to support the power in the court to make a. modification of a decree for alimony with respect to the unpaid instalments of past due alimony. * * * ””
    1 later decision 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.