Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 Md. App. 448 - Fox v. Fox

85 Md. App. 448 - Fox v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2015

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

110199120002010decided

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 · 64 Md. App. 487 - Rosenberg v. Rosenberg · 82 Md. App. 183 - Broseus v. Broseus · 64 Md. App. 122 - Green v. Green · 57 Md. App. 662 - Dobbyn v. Dobbyn

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

  1. “court to redetermine the values of th[e] plans as of the date of the divorce”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The wisdom of providing for the possibility that the future will be substantially different from that which is presently projected is exemplified by the facts of Brashier v. Brashier, 80 Md.App. 93 , 560 A.2d 44 (1989). In that case, Judge Bishop ... pointed out that Mrs. Brashier’s continued inability to alleviate certain conditions that kept her from becoming self-sufficient were unanticipated at the time of divorce. On that basis, we held that modification of the divorce order from an award of alimony for a limited period to one of indefinite duration was not an abuse of discretion.”
    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.