129 Md. App. 165 - In Re John M.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Restitution serves several objectives. It can compensate victims who have been injured or who have suffered property loss as a result of the wrongful acts of a minor, although “a court’s concern that the victim be fully compensated should not overshadow its primary duty to promote the rehabilitation of the defendant.” In re Don Mc., 344 Md. [194,] 203 [ 686 A.2d 269 (1996) ] (citation omitted). Restitution “can ‘impress upon [the juvenile] the gravity of harm he has inflicted upon another’, and ‘provide an opportunity for him to make amends.’ ” In re Levon A., 124 Md.App. 103, 132 , 720 A.2d 1232 (1998) (quoting In re Herbert B., 303 Md. 419, 427 , 494 A.2d 680 (1985)). The restitution statute “is also penal in nature since liability arises ‘as a consequence of a presumed neglect of parental responsibilities.’ ” In re Zephrin D., 69 Md.App. 755, 761 , 519 A.2d 806 (1987) (citation omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Earl F.

2. “statutory limitations and due process considerations do not permit an order of restitution for counseling expenses that are not yet certain to occur. We are mindful that the restitution statutes, because they are penal in nature and modify the common law, need to be strictly construed. The statute provided that the juvenile court may award restitution for “reasonable counseling expenses from a licensed health care provider” when the delinquent act has “caused the victim of the delinquent to incur” such expenses. § 808(a)(i)(iii). Our observation in Zephrin that “there is no provision under [the restitution statute] for an award for those ordinary tort damages such as pain and suffering, loss of income or future losses and future medical expenses,” while not essential to the holding in that case, is instructive.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 191 Md. App. 159 - Addison v. State

3. “I regard that there is a danger that exists, that a new therapist, a different therapist, probing into the areas of what happened to these little girls, potentially and unintentionally could upset the current therapy. And after all, money aside, rehabilitation of the Respondent aside, it seems to me that we should not in any way, inhibit, obstruct or destroy the ongoing therapy that these children are in. And I, I have a great concern, that in the course of probing, into the issues, uh ... in this case, a therapist could unintentionally disturb the current therapy, or upset the child. And obviously these are areas, when you’re involved in the sexual abuse of a five and six year old child, which these children currently are, it’s a very delicate situation. And it involves the rest of their lives.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Mark M.