89 Md. App. 156 - Hollander v. Hollander’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably 89 Md. App. 448 - Fowler v. Printers II, Inc. (1991), Doser v. Doser (1995)
34 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 Montgomery County v. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc. · Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. v. Department of Employment & Training · Klein v. Weiss · Harper v. Harper · 103 Wis. 2d 327 - Holbrook v. Holbrook
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we refrained [in Hollander ] from delving into the details of the trial court’s methodology used to create a goodwill value, we did provide some guidance for future cases. First, we distinguished goodwill from future earnings capacity.... To this end, we discouraged one common analysis used to measure goodwill, the excess earnings method, because the value arrived at under this calculation “represents nothing more than an entity’s future earning capacity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Because the issue has not been preserved, we do not determine the correctness of utilizing a capitalization of excess earnings method of valuating a dental business. We note, however, the approach of Delaware, Missouri, Utah, and Wisconsin in rejecting the consideration of future earning capacity as a sole measure of goodwill....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We cannot reverse the judgment of the trial judge unless we conclude his findings were clearly erroneous or that in awarding alimony, he abused his discretion. The trial judge ... is not required to use a formal “checklist” but may declare an award for alimony in any way that shows consideration of the necessary factors.”
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.