Cronin v. Hebditch’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably 38 Md. App. 10 - Bell v. Bell (1977), Bogdan Llc v. Jkv K
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 28 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 Emerson v. Emerson · Campbell v. Campbell · Young v. Cockman · Melson v. Melson · Mushaw v. Mushaw
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Both court and counsel below seem to have assumed that enactment of the Act of 1931 was due to the decision of this court in Harrison v. Harrison, 160 Md. 378 , 153 A. 58 . If we make the same assumption, we are not thereby greatly aided in construing the act, since neither the Harrison case nor the act made any marked change in pre-existing law. “It has long been held that a separation agreement, (i.e., not an agreement to separate, as such, but an agreement as to support or property rights during an existing or contemplated separation) may be an acquiescence in abandonment and therefore a bar to a divorce on that ground, Barclay v. Barclay, 98 Md. 366 , 56 A. 804 , but is not per se a bar to a subsequent suit for divorce. Lemmert v. Lemmert, 103 Md. 57 , 63 A. 380 . The Act of 1931 is in terms in accord with the Lemmert case; in the recent case of Kershaw v. Kershaw, 195 Md. 307 , 73 A. 2d 223 , we in effect followed the Barclay case in denying a divorce to a spouse living separate pursuant to a separation agreement— for less than the statutory period under the Act of 1937, ch. 396, or the Act of 1947, ch. 240, (Art. 16, sec. 40, 1939 and 1947), Supp. In Campbell v. Campbell, 174 Md. 229, 241 , 198 A. 414, 419 , 116 A. L. R. 939, it was said, ‘In Melson v. Melson, supra, 151 Md. 196 , at page 205, 134 A. 136, 139 , it was said in the opinion of the court, as delivered by Judge Parke: “The agreement of separation was valid as the agreed equivalent of future maintenance by t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stevens v. Stevens
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.