Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 Md. App. 598 - Rock v. Rock

86 Md. App. 598 - Rock v. Rock’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Tracey v. Tracey (1992), 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner (2002)

64 state decisions

3201991200020102020decided

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 · Choi v. State · 64 Md. App. 487 - Rosenberg v. Rosenberg · 58 Md. App. 386 - Sharp v. Sharp · 82 Md. App. 183 - Broseus v. Broseus

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

  1. “(1) due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability, the party seeking alimony cannot reasonably be expected to make substantial progress toward becoming self-supporting; or (2) even after the party seeking alimony will have made as much progress toward becoming self-supporting as can reasonably be expected, the respective standards of living of the parties will be unconscionably disparate.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Even if we assume she could make as much as $30,000 per year, that would only be 21.7 percent of Mr. Rock’s 1988 income of $138,546.69. In keeping with our prior decisions, this difference in income is substantial enough to uphold an award of indefinite spousal support.... Ms. Rock’s past earnings give little indication that the living standards of the parties will be anything other than unconscionably disparate. Moreover, if his income were reduced to $100,000, Ms. Rock would still only earn 30 percent of his income. As we have said, grossly disparate income ordinarily translates into grossly disparate standards of living.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “This Court has affirmed grants of indefinite alimony, and refusals to award indefinite alimony, where a variety of disparities in income were projected. See Rock v. Rock, 86 Md.App. 598, 612 [ 587 A.2d 1133 ] (1991). ‘Our approval or denial of these awards clearly indicate the importance we place upon the judgment and discretion of the fact finder in evaluating and weighing the evidence and determining all the facts and circumstances in making these very important decisions.’ Id.”
    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.