Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Md. 640 - Timanus v. Timanus

Timanus v. Timanus’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
2
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably Dougherty v. Dougherty (1946), 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston (1984)

5 federal appellate · 63 state decisions

1901940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Muir v. Muir · Roberts v. Roberts · McClees v. McClees · Dicus v. Dicus · Wygodsky v. Wygodsky

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

  1. “"It is a general rule that a court, before determining the award of alimony, should consider the maintenance of the wife in accordance with the husband’s duty to support her suitably, together with the husband’s wealth and earning capacity. In addition to the financial circumstances of the parties, the court should also usually consider their station in life, their age and physical condition, ability to work, the length of time they lived together, the circumstances leading up to the separation, the fault which destroyed the home, and their respective responsibilities for the care and support of the children. The award should be made in an amount sufficient to support the wife in reasonable comfort in her station in life. But when the husband owns no property, the court can not base the award of alimony upon a hope of gratuities or a mere surmise that he will receive them. The wife is entitled to demand such support as her husband is reasonably able to furnish from his property or earnings. In applying for alimony, a wife is not asking for favors, but demanding rights, and these rights should be considered in connection with her husband’s capacity. Wygodsky v. Wygodsky, 134 Md. 344, 347 , 106 A. 698, 699 ; Roberts v. Roberts, 160 Md. 513, 525 , 154 A. 95, 100 ; Muir v. Muir, 133 Ky. 125 , 92 S.W. 314, 909 [sic]; Hooper v. Hooper, 102 Wis. 598 , 78 N.W. 753, 755 ; Boyden v. Boyden, 50 R.I. 326 , 147 A. 621 .” Id. at 642-43.”
    6 later decisions 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.