83 Md. App. 218 - Hull v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2016
23 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 58 Md. App. 308 - Holston v. Holston · McAlear v. McAlear · Turrisi v. Sanzaro · Timanus v. Timanus · Willoughby v. Willoughby
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the ability of the party seeking alimony to be wholly or partially 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 [monetary] award made ...; (iii) the nature and amount of the financial obligations of each party; and (iv) the right of each party to receive retirement benefits ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he purpose of alimony is not to provide a lifetime pension, but where practicable to ease the transition for the parties from the joint married state to their new status as single people living apart and independently. Expressed otherwise, alimony’s purpose is “to provide an opportunity for the recipient spouse to become self-supporting.” The concept of alimony as life-long support enabling the dependent spouse to maintain an accustomed standard of living has largely been superseded by the view that the dependent spouse should be required to become self-supporting, even though that might result in a reduced standard of living.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the case of rehabilitative alimony, moreover, the court would be concerned with whether, even after maximum rehabilitation had been attained, there might yet persist an “unconscionable disparity” in the relative living standards of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coviello v. Coviello
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.