Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 Md. App. 704 - Hoffman v. Hoffman

93 Md. App. 704 - Hoffman v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
November 2005
most recently cited

20 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Deering v. Deering · Harper v. Harper · Schweizer v. Schweizer · Grant v. Zich · 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the contribution, monetary and nonmonetary, of each party to the well-being of the family; (2) the value of all property interests of each party; (3) the economic circumstances of each party at the time the award is made; (4) the circumstances that contributed to the estrangement of the parties; (5) the duration of the marriage; (6) the age of each party; (7) the physical and mental condition of each party; (8) how and when specific marital property was acquired, including the effort expended by each party in accumulating the marital property; (9) any award of alimony and any award of other provision that the court has made with respect to family use of personal property or the family home; and (10) any other factor that the court considers necessary or appropriate to consider in order to arrive at a fair and equitable monetary award.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The trial judge also erred in his order by granting to Ms. Hoffman from Mr. Hoffman’s pensions an award of a lump sum payment or, in the alternative, an “as, if and when” award. By making the pension award in the alternative (at the election of the .appellee) rather than making a decision, the trial court made it impossible to determine properly the amount of the monetary award. The court must determine and consider the amount awarded to a spouse from the other spouse’s pension in order to calculate accurately the amount of the monetary award. Prior to making its decisions it is, of course, proper for the court to inquire as to the parties’ preference. The court’s order, however, should be a final order.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[h]ow and when specific marital property or interest in pension, retirement, profit sharing or deferred compensation plan was acquired, including the effort expended by each party in accumulating the marital property or the interest.... (Emphasis added.)”
    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.