Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 8/31/1994

Strauss v. Strauss

Citations

647 A.2d 818
101 Md. App. 490
1994 Md. App. LEXIS 119

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

“The strength of [one expert’s] method relative to the accuracy of the analysis performed by [the other party’s] expert is immaterial to our standard of review.”
court abused its discretion in only basing the award of indefinite alimony on wife’s “expressed needs and her ability to meet those needs” without considering the parties’ respective life styles
“A reply brief cannot be used as a tool to inject new arguments.”
”[T]he scope of a reply brief is limited to the points raised in appellee’s brief, which, in turn, address the issues originally raised by appellant. A reply brief cannot be used as a tool to inject new arguments.”
“the scope of a reply brief is limited to the points raised in the appellee’s brief, which, in turn, address[es] the issues originally raised by appellant ... A reply brief cannot be used as a tool to inject new argument.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fischer, Harrell, Murphy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.