Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 Md. App. 265 - Pearce v. Micka

62 Md. App. 265 - Pearce v. Micka’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
October 2005
most recently cited

4 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2005

4 district · 12 state decisions

100198519902000decided

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 McCaslin v. Schouten · Lutherville Supply & Equipment Co. v. Dimon

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

  1. “[D]eposits of money used by [husband] to support his family did not constitute fraudulent conveyances because, within the meaning of the Uniform Act, there is “fair consideration” for the payment of money by a debtor to satisfy his obligation to provide necessaries for his wife and children. Nor do such expenditures constitute interspousal transfers of property to the prejudice of creditors within the meaning of art. 45, § 1. Providing necessaries for a family is not a transfer of property from one spouse to another.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred by a person who is or will be rendered insolvent by it is fraudulent as to creditors without regard to his actual intent, if the conveyance is made or the obligation is incurred without a fair consideration.”
    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.