82 Md. App. 183 - Broseus v. Broseus’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Petrini v. Petrini (1994), 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner (2002)
91 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 General Motors Corp. v. Lahocki · Harper v. Harper · 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston · Choi v. State · 58 Md. App. 386 - Sharp v. Sharp
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Court to make determination. — (1) The court shall determine the amount of and the period for an award of alimony. (2) The court may award alimony for a period beginning from the filing of the pleading that requests alimony. (3) At the conclusion of the period of the award of alimony, no further alimony shall accrue. (b) Required considerations. — In making the determination, the court shall consider all the factors necessary for a fair and equitable award, including: (1) the ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partly self-supporting; (2) the time necessary for the party seeking alimony to gain sufficient education or training to enable that party to find suitable employment; (3) the standard of living that the parties established during their marriage; (4) the duration of the marriage; (5) the contributions, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (6) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (7) the age of each party; (8) the physical and mental condition of each party; (9) the ability of the party from whom alimony is sought to meet that party's needs while meeting the needs of the party seeking alimony; (10) any agreement between the parties; and (11) the financial needs and financial resources of each party, including: (i) all income and assets, including property that does not produce income; (ii) any award made under §§ 8-205 and 8-208 of this article; (iii) the nature and amount of the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tracey v. Tracey“Nevertheless, in view of the great disparity in wealth between the parties, it is obvious that no matter how much rehabilitative alimony Mrs. Melrod receives and how much progress it will enable her to make toward becoming self-supporting, the respective standards of living of the parties will be greatly disparate. Even taking all of that into account, however, unless a revised monetary award will provide Mrs. Melrod with a great deal of income, the disparity in income and, therefore, standards of living, will be far greater than we held to be unconscionable____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coviello v. Coviello“Courts have upheld the denial of contribution where, as here, [appellant] receives the benefit of the use of the residence and has not made any claim that the expenses of the house exceeded the value of the use of the premises. While the Chancellor in this case did not deny contribution entirely, he certainly did not abuse his discretion in taking those same facts into consideration for his calculation.”
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.