50 Md. App. 240 - Hofmann v. Hofmann’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Chief Judge Murphy, for the Court, explained in Condore that the common law of Maryland prior to the adoption of Article 46 of the Declaration of Rights was that a husband was under “a legal duty to supply his wife with necessaries suitable to their station in life ...” 289 Md. at 520 , 425 A.2d at 1013 . The wife, however, was not under a similar obligation to the husband irrespective of her financial ability to meet similar obligations. Thus, even if the wife were a millionaire and her husband a pauper, the wife was under no legal duty to pay for the husband’s necessaries. Had the duty of supplying necessaries run from the wife to husband as well as from husband to wife, Condore would have been decided differently.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes

2. “When the voters of Maryland ratified what is now Article 46 of the Declaration of Rights ... [t]he presumption of dominance in a marriage by a husband was erased, and the right of the husband to claim alimony was born. Article 46, reduced to a simplistic saw, says that “what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.” The Maryland Equal Rights Amendment is a two-edged sword....”

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