57 Md. App. 593 - Bender v. Bender’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 2006
22 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 Thompson v. Thompson · Jessie Thompson v. Charles N Thompson · Boblitz v. Boblitz · McClung-Logan Equipment Co. v. Thomas · Lusby v. Lusby
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Judge Smith’s use of the word “outrageous” aptly describes the nature of the offense in Lusby . The use of a descriptive adjective, however, does not require that the same word be grafted upon each succeeding tortious act in order to establish a cause of action. We believe the Court’s primary focus in Lusby was its recognition that henceforth in Maryland intentional torts would form a basis for interspousal suits at law.... The use of the word “outrageous,” in our view, appropriately characterized the offense, but the Court was sanctioning claims for intentional torts and not claims limited to outrageous torts.... The severity [of the tort] is a matter of damages, not of liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The trial judge in this case found that Penelope Bender committed a "rather egregious wrong against Mr. Bender,” but concluded that the totality of the circumstances warranted an allowance of interest rather than punitive damages. The court’s conclusion was supported by a detailed fact finding which was supported by substantial evidence in the record. His decision, therefore, is not clearly erroneous and will not be disturbed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.