23 Md. App. 232 - Abb v. Crossfield’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 1995
22 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 Zouck v. Zouck · Wooddy v. Wooddy · Monticello v. Monticello · Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Warren · McCabe v. McCabe
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Section 3, providing that the remedies herein provided are in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies, is important because it leaves in force not only the remedies traditionally employed by the state to solve the problems of the abandonment of dependents when all the parties are still within one state but also some that may be employed when they are not .... This section also means that the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act may be applied wherever possible. The foreign judgments to which that act is applicable are those entitled to full faith and credit. Under the traditional view only those which have been reduced to a final judgment no longer subject to modification are so entitled. However, the trend is in the opposite direction; and today more and more states are enforcing foreign support orders, though not compelled to do so by the full faith and credit clause.[ 3 ] All this law is preserved for use by Section 3, and its possible application to any given situation should be canvassed before action under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is taken, [id. at 11-12 (Footnotes omitted)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barrell v. Barrell““The appellant correctly points out that Mrs. Abb could have sought enforcement of her decree and separation agreement in the Maryland courts as a foreign judgment. It does not follow, however, that the availability of that option should be construed as precluding a URESA action initiated in another jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Barrell v. Barrell
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.