58 Md. App. 386 - Sharp v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 64 Md. App. 487 - Rosenberg v. Rosenberg (1985), Martin v. Martin (1988)
92 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Berish v. Berish · Hall v. State · Harper v. Harper · 114 Ill. App. 3d 47 - In Re Marriage of Smith · 68 Ill. App. 3d 513 - Klingberg v. Klingberg
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'finds that property was intentionally dissipated in order to avoid inclusion of the property towards consideration of a monetary award.'”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“[dissipation occurs “where one spouse uses marital property for his own benefit and for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellant argues that appellee’s failure to file a cross-complaint in the Frederick County’s divorce proceedings demonstrated her desire to shop for a more desirable forum. We are unaware of any rule requiring a person to file a cross-complaint for divorce. There is no question that appellee resided in Montgomery County when she filed her suit for divorce. Maryland Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 6-202 (1980 Repl.Vol., 1983 Cum.Supp.) confers venue in divorce proceedings where the plaintiff resides. Accordingly, since there was nothing further to litigate with regard to appellant’s request for a divorce in Frederick County, appellee was within her rights to bring an action in the County where she resided. Appellant’s Motion Raising Preliminary Objection was correctly denied.”
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.