Scheinin v. Scheinin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 state decisions

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

1. ““It is accepted that any conduct of a husband that renders the marital relation intolerable and compels the wife to leave him may justify a divorce on the ground of constructive desertion, even though the conduct may not justify a divorce on the ground of cruelty. Sullivan v. Sullivan, [ 199 Md. 594, 600 ], 87 A.2d 604, 607 [(1952)]. Any misconduct of the husband will justify the wife in leaving him when it makes it impossible for her to live with him without loss of her health or self-respect, or gives her reasonable apprehension of bodily injury. If the husband’s misconduct has been such as to render continuance of the marriage relation unbearable, justifying the wife in leaving him, he is the one who is guilty of desertion. Polley v. Polley, 128 Md. 60 , [66,] 97 A. 526 , [529 (1916)]; Schwartz v. Schwartz, 158 Md. 80, 90 , 148 A. 259 [, 262-63 (1930)]; Singewald v. Singewald, 165 Md. 136 , [147,] 166 A. 441 [, 446 (1933)]; Kline v. Kline, 179 Md. 10 , [13,] 16 A.2d 924 [, 925 (1940)]; Fischer v. Fischer, 182 Md. 281 , [286,] 34 A.2d 455 [, 457 (1943)]; Hockman v. Hockman, 184 Md. 473 , [478,] 41 A.2d 510 [, 513 (1945)]; Miller v. Miller, 185 Md. 79 , [82,] 42 A.2d 915 [, 917 (1945)]; Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 189 Md. 322 , [325,] 55 A.2d 719[, 720 (1947)]; Gold v. Gold, 191 Md. 533, 539 , 62 A.2d 540 [, 543 (1948)].””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ricketts v. Ricketts · 17 Md. App. 665 - Richardson v. Richardson

2. ““So in Maryland physical violence is no longer essential to constitute cruelty of treatment. It is now accepted that cruelty as a cause for divorce includes any conduct on the part of the husband or wife which is calculated to seriously impair the health or permanently destroy the happiness of the other. Thus any misconduct of a husband that endangers, or creates a reasonable apprehension that it will endanger, the wife’s safety or health to a degree rendering it physically or mentally impracticable for her to properly discharge the marital duties constitutes cruelty within the meaning of the divorce statute. Wendel v. Wendel, 154 Md. 11 , 139 A. 573 . For instance, in Silverberg v. Silverberg, 148 Md. 682 , 130 A. 325 , this Court held that evidence that the husband had made false and malicious accusations of unchastity against his wife in the presence of others and had committed other acts designed to humiliate her justified a divorce a mensa el thoro.” Id. at 289-90.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 133 Md. App. 1 - Das v. Das · Coover v. Coover

3. ““* * * Likewise, although the use of profane and indecent language by a husband does not of itself constitute cruelty, yet a husband’s habit of using such language before his wife, especially in the presence of the children, is a ma terial fact that may be considered together with other misconduct in establishing cruelty. The fact that a husband curses his wife occasionally, or calls her ‘feebleminded’ or ‘nutty’, or casts other derogatory epithets upon her, does not entitle her to a divorce, unless it endangers her health. Oertel v. Oertel, 145 Md. 177 , 125 A. 545 ; McKane v. McKane, 152 Md. 515 , 137 A. 288 ; Hillwood v. Hillwood, 159 Md. 167 , 150 A. 286 . But where a husband habitually addresses his wife in vile and profane language, and occasionally resorts to acts of physical violence, the entire course of conduct may constitute cruelty, although the physical violence alone may not be sufficient to justify a divorce.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Coover v. Coover · Carpenter v. Carpenter