51 Md. App. 451 - Duskin v. Duskin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Rather than stating a new cause of action, the appellant’s second bill of complaint differs from the original complaint only in its requested remedies, i.e. divorce a vinculo, and application of the Marital Property Act. The appellant’s apparent motive for filing a second bill of complaint was to seek application of the Act, as indicated in appellant’s opposition to the appellee’s motion raising preliminary objection to the appellant’s second bill of complaint. The appellant requested the lower court to deny the appellee’s motion so that she could “seek ... the relief afforded by the new Domestic Relations Law of Maryland, Chapter 794, Acts of 1978”. At trial the appellant was provided an opportunity to seek such relief, but the lower court did not err in refusing to provide the appellant with the benefits of the Marital Property Act.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 Md. App. 1 - Miller v. Miller

2. “"... when the Circuit Court for Montgomery County consolidated Equity No. 63525 and equity No. 67957, the court created one case. For purposes of analysis under Section 2 of the Marital Property Act, the original bill of complaint for that one case was the appellant’s bill of complaint filed on June 23, 1978 and never dismissed. Just as the appellee’s supplemental pleadings became “a part of the original case”, Athanason, supra, at 234 [ 426 A.2d 16 ], so the appellant’s bill of complaint filed on July 23, 1979 became tantamount to a supplementation of her original bill of complaint.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 Md. App. 1 - Miller v. Miller

3. ““The appellant’s cause of action was adequately set forth in her original bill of complaint, and no new cause of action was interjected by the second bill of complaint. Thus, the second bill constituted nothing more than an “emanation of the same cause of action” previously asserted, and it “relates back to the time of filing of the original bill ...” See Prince George’s County v. Blumberg, 44 Md.App. 79, 109-110 , 407 A.2d 1151 , rev’d on other grounds, (1979) applying this rule in the statute of limitations context____””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 70 Md. App. 1 - Miller v. Miller