McCabe v. McCabe’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Brown v. Brown (1980), Jones v. State (1998)
32 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 People of State of New York Halvey v. Halvey · Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · Griffin v. Griffin · Matilda Von Ellert Sistare v. Horace Randall Sistare · Barber v. Barber
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This Court has held that alimony represents a duty and not a debt.... In Oles Envelope Corp. v. Oles, 193 Md. 79 , the Court said that the obligation to pay alimony is not a debt but a duty resting upon sound public policy, and added: ‘Hence this obligation may be enforced by attachment of the person for contempt, and the defendant may be imprisoned unless he can purge himself of the contempt by paying or by showing that he has neither the estate nor the ability to pay.’ Since the 1950 amendment of Art. Ill, Sec. 38, Constitution of Maryland, and the decision in Zouck v. Zouck, 204 Md. 285 , obligation of support of minor children under a decree would, like alimony, be considered a duty, not a debt. The public policy of Maryland would seem clearly to permit the relief sought by the wife in this case____” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the wife in this case were proceeding under a domestic equity decree, or if she were residing in another state and proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act against her husband who was in this State, the husband could be made to obey orders to support by sanctions available to equity. We see no reason why the same sanctions may not be made available to compel him to obey the decree of another state .... fid. at 315, 123 A.2d at 451 .1”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Green“We need not and do not decide now the answer to the various problems that may arise in the enforcement in equity of foreign decrees for alimony and support. We decide only that in Maryland an equity court can enforce a decree of another state, .. . and may use for its enforcement the same equitable remedies and sanctions it could use to enforce a decree it had duly entered in the first instance .... 1210 Md. at 317-18, 123 A.2d at 452 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Green
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.