73 Md. App. 473 - Payne v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2002
12 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 Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips of Fairfax, Inc. v. Chillum Terrace Ltd. Partnership · Unkle v. Unkle · 64 Md. App. 122 - Green v. Green · Robinson v. State · 52 Md. App. 225 - Medley v. State
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In support of that contention, appellant cites Slacum v. Slacum, 158 Md. 107 , 148 A. 226 (1930); Cole v. Cole, 44 Md.App. 435 , 409 A.2d 734 (1979); and Tidler v. Tidler, 50 Md.App. 1 , 435 A.2d 489 (1981), for the proposition that an existing order for child support may be modified only when evidence clearly indicates a change of circumstances justifying the same. Although the cases cited all support the abstract principle of law for which they are cited, neither they nor that abstract principle is relevant here. None of the cases involved a pendente lite order, and we think it is not appropriate to apply the “change in circumstances” requirement to pendente lite orders.” They, after all, are designed to provide for purely temporary needs on a short term basis, whereas the provisions for support in a final judgment of divorce are perforce intended to be more permanent and cover equally essential but less frequent recurring living expenses. Consequently, the same evidence that would necessitate a relatively small award of pendente lite support may very well justify a much larger award of support in the final decree.”
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.