38 Md. App. 10 - Bell v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 45 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[An] act done or threatened may be wrongful even though not unlawful, per se; and that the threat to institute legal proceedings, criminal or civil, which might be justifiable, per se, becomes wrongful within the meaning of this rule if made with the corrupt intent to coerce a transaction grossly unfair to the victim and not related to the subject of such proceedings.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 Md. App. 506 - Eckstein v. Eckstein · 175 Md. App. 422 - Rendelman v. State

2. “In order to establish a confidential relationship one must show that by virtue of the relationship between them, he is justified in assuming the other party will not act in a manner inconsistent with his welfare. Unlike many jurisdictions, Maryland does not presume the existence of a confidential relationship in. transactions between husband and wife. Owings v. Currier, 186 Md. 590 , 47 A.2d 743 (1946). In Maryland there has been a presumption that the husband is the dominant figure in the marriage. In Manos v. Papachrist, 199 Md. 257, 262 , 86 A.2d 474 (1951), the Court noted: “Ordinarily the relationship of husband and wife is a confidential one. Of course, in any given case it is a question of fact whether the marital relationship is such as to give the husband dominance over his wife or to put him in a position where words of persuasion have undue weight. Generally, however, on account of the natural dominance of the husband over the wife, and the confidence and trust usually incident to their marriage, a court of equity will investigate a gift from a wife to her husband with utmost care, especially where it strips her of all her property; and the burden of proof is on the husband to show that there was no abuse of confidence, but that the gift was fair in all respects, was fully understood, and was not induced by fraud or undue influence.” We noted the questionable foundation upon which this presumption rests in light of Article 46 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 Md. App. 648 - Tedesco v. Tedesco

3. “The chancellor considered these facts, but found that no confidential relationship existed primarily because Mrs. Bell negotiated several changes in the agreement and questioned other provisions, as is clearly shown by the tape recording. He found there was a lack of trust and confidence in the other party necessary to the establishment of a confidential relationship. We are unable to say his decision on this issue was clearly erroneous. Md. Rule 1086.[ 6 ] Absent proof of a confidential relationship between the parties, separation agreements, not disclosing any injustice or inequity on their face, are presumptively valid and the burden is on the party challenging the agreement to show its execution resulted from coercion, fraud, or mistake.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 111 Md. App. 648 - Tedesco v. Tedesco