Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 Md. 41 - Bowis v. Bowis

Bowis v. Bowis’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
August 2004
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently August 2004 · most notably Unkle v. Unkle (1986), Brodak v. Brodak (1982)

37 state decisions

2801970198019902000decided

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 Dougherty v. Dougherty · Lopez v. Lopez · Hood v. Hood · Timanus v. Timanus · Waters v. Waters

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.

  1. ““However, this Court has repeatedly emphasized the fact that there are no pat rules or statutory mandates to be followed in making awards for alimony and support and maintenance. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find any area of law where the need is more compelling to tailor the remedy to the facts of each particular case.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““While the wife in her testimony admitted that she knew that the profit from the stock trades were used for family support, nonetheless, the husband had agreed to return the stock to her. In fact, the husband admitted on cross-examination that he had agreed to return the stock account to the wife ‘at any time she wanted.’ While it is true that the husband used the income from the short-term stock trading to help support the family, the establishment of the account was more of a contribution to his ‘on the job training’ and a help towards supporting the family than a gift to him. In such a situation the stocks representing the jointly held account were not in actuality a joint asset of the parties as the husband had never contributed anything toward the purchase of the securities nor had the wife ever made a gift to him of any interest in the securities.” Id. at 45 .”
    1 later decision 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.