128 Md. App. 357 - Dunlap v. Fiorenza’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 state decisions

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.

1. “I strongly disagree . .. with any suggestion in the majority opinion that the addition of half-siblings “is per se a significant part of the departure rationale.” Clearly, the addition of half-siblings may, in the appropriate case, justify a downward departure from the child support guidelines. F.L. § 12-202(a)(2)(iii)(2). But, it is not an automatic entitlement. The presumptive correctness of the child support guidelines is mandated by statute. See F.L. 12 — 202(a)(2)(i). Mere proof that Mr. Fiorenza has two other young children, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption, and therefore does not warrant a downward departure from the guidelines under F.L. § 12-202(a)(2)(iii)(2).... Moreover, F.L. § 12-202(a)(2)(iv)(2)(C) expressly requires the court to make a finding as to how the determination to deviate downward from the guidelines “serves the best interests of the child.” ... The lower court’s statement that “it would be in the best interest of Justin that his half-siblings not have to do without (anymore than necessary)” is, in my view, an inadequate explanation as to how the downward departure from the guidelines serves Justin’s best interests. * * * In sum, the father had the burden to rebut the presumption that the guidelines' amount of support was correct. Merely having two other children is not enough to rebut the presumption.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 165 Md. App. 445 - Beck v. Beck

2. “As to Plaintiffs second exception, that the Master erred by imputing $2,000.00 per month as income to Plaintiff during the school year, the exception is DENIED. Pursu ant to Family Law Article § 12 — 204(b)(1), “if a parent is voluntarily impoverished, child support may be calculated based on a determination of potential income.” Potential income is defined in § 12 — 201(j) as “income attributed to a parent determined by the parent’s employment potential and probable earnings level based on, but not limited to, recent work history, occupational qualifications, prevailing job opportunities, and earnings levels in the community.” With respect to employment potential, Plaintiff testified that between the time that she graduated from college and started her program at Johns Hopkins, she worked at a Virginia Marine Science Lab and earned $8.00 per hour. She also testified that she is presently qualified to do that work. Regarding recent work history, Plaintiff earned $2,000.00 per month while working at Johns Hopkins. There was no testimony provided with respect to the prevailing job opportunities or earnings levels in the community. However, based on her education, qualifications, and most recent work history, this Court imputes $2,000.00 per month to Plaintiff as income during the school year.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 183 Md. App. 312 - Lorincz v. Lorincz

3. “(a) In general.—The court may award to either party the costs and counsel fees that are just and proper under all the circumstances in any case which a person: (1) applies for a decree or modification of a decree concerning the custody, support, or visitation of a child of the parties; or (2) ' files any form of proceeding: (i) to recover arrearages of child support; (ii) to enforce a decree of child support; or (iii) to enforce a decree of custody or visitation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 Md. App. 358 - Malin v. Mininberg