52 Md. App. 336 - Ward v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Alston v. Alston (1993), 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston (1984)
83 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 Deering v. Deering · Harper v. Harper · Ackerley Communications, Inc. v. City of Seattle · Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger · Wimmer v. Wimmer
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) if an equitable adjustment over and above the distribution of the spouse’s property in accordance with its title is an issue, the court shall determine which property is marital property; (2) the court shall then determine the value of all marital property; (3) finally, the court may make a monetary award as an adjustment of the parties’ ‘equities and rights’ concerning marital property____ If an award is deemed appropriate, the court shall then consider each of the [ten] factors enumerated in [§ 8-205(a) ] in determining a fair and equitable amount and the method of its payment.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the contribution, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (2) the value of all property interests of each party; (3) the economic circumstances of each party at the time the award is made; (4) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (5) the duration of the marriage; (6) the age of each party; (7) the physical and mental condition of each party; (8) how and when specific marital property was acquired, including the effort expended by each party in accumulating the marital property; (9) any award of alimony and any award of other provision that the court has made with respect to family use of personal property or the family home; and (10) any other factor that the court considers necessary or appropriate to consider in order to arrive at a fair and equitable monetary award.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he chancellor’s ruling violates the most basic principles governing monetary awards. Since the function of a monetary award is to adjust the parties’ equities in the marital property, it is elemental that a court cannot make an award whose amount exceeds the total value of the marital property. Here the court awarded $50,000 (or a net of $40,000) based on marital property worth only $32,000. [Ward, supra, 52 Md. App. at 343 , emphasis added.]”
3 later decisions 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.