149 Md. App. 1 - Smith v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In fashioning its decision, the court was also concerned that, because of the nature and unpredictability of appellee’s career, appellee’s current wealth may be short lived. Given that uncertainty, the court decided to allow appellee to retain most of his money for the proverbial rainy day. Although appellee has a limited career expectancy, we do not believe that it is appropriate for a court to make a child support determination on the basis of events that have not yet occurred. Life is, after all, full of uncertainty. Further, the court’s reasoning conflicts with the principle that a child is entitled to a level of support commensurate with the parents’ economic position. As appellant observes, it is “precisely because the father’s long range earning potential ... is comparatively short, that there is ... more justification for presently setting aside substantial funds for child support.” Put another way, given that appellee’s resources may, indeed, diminish in the future, it is appropriate for the court to allow the child to share the father’s wealth while it exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 152 Md. App. 609 - Johnson v. Johnson

2. “Although the child support guidelines apply in most cases, the trial court may exercise discretion in setting the basic support obligation when the combined adjusted actual income of the parents exceeds $10,000 per month. The legislative history and case law do not obscure the fact that the legislature left the task of awards above the guidelines to the chancellor precisely because such awards defied any simple mathematical solution. Allowing judicial discretion promotes the policy behind the guidelines, that, even at very high income levels, “a child’s standard of living should be altered as little as possible by the dissolution of the family. ” In cases such as this one, where the guidelines do not apply, calculation of child support falls within the chancellor’s sound discretion. The chancellor will “examine the needs of the child in light of the parents’ resources and determine the amount of support necessary to ensure that the child’s standard of living does not suffer because of the parents’ separation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Md. App. 295 - Maness v. Sawyer

3. “When the chancellor exercises discretion with respect to child support in an above Guidelines case, he- or she “must balance the best interests and needs of the child with the parent’s financial ability to meet those needs.” Unkle v. Unkle, 305 Md. 587, 597 , 505 A.2d 849 (1986); see Collins [v. Collins], 144 Md.App. [395,] 443, 798 A.2d 1155 [(2002)]. Several factors are relevant in setting child support in an above Guidelines case. They include the parties’ financial circumstances, Unkle, 305 Md. at 597 , 505 A.2d 849 , the “reasonable expenses of the child,” Voishan [v. Palma], 327 Md. [318,] 332, 609 A.2d 319 [(2002)], and the parties’ “ ‘station in life, their age and physical condition, and expenses in educating the child [ ].’ ” Id. at 329 , 609 A.2d 319 (citation omitted). We will not disturb the trial court’s discretionary determination as to an appropriate award of child support absent legal error or abuse of discretion. Ware v. Ware, 131 Md.App. 207, 240 , 748 A.2d 1031 (2000).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 152 Md. App. 609 - Johnson v. Johnson