180 Md. App. 326 - Sigurdsson v. Nodeen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Civil actions.—Subject to the provisions of §§ 6-202[ 6 ] and 6-203[ 7 ] of this subtitle and unless otherwise provided by law, a civil action shall be brought in a county where the defendant resides, carries on a regular business, is employed, or habitually engages in a vocation. In addition, a corporation also may be sued where it maintains its principal offices in the State. (b) Multiple defendants.—If there is more than one defendant, and there is no single venue applicable to all defendants, under subsection (a), all may be sued in a county in which any one of them could be sued, or in the county where the cause of action arose.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nodeen v. Sigurdsson · 203 Md. App. 452 - Dinapoli v. Kent Island, LLC

2. “A custody case is a civil action. Because a court that has issued a final custody order has continuing jurisdiction, a party to the action may request, by motion, that the court modify its order. It is implicit in our holding in Struzinski,[ 3 ] that, once a final custody order has been issued by a court, an application to modify custody may be made in that same court, by motion, or in another court having jurisdiction and venue, by bringing a new custody action. In either situation, the decision whether to modify is governed by the material change in circumstances and best interest standards. Thus, in the case at bar, the fact that the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County already had exercised jurisdiction over the issue of custody of Wade, and that it had continuing jurisdiction over its custody order for Wade, did not preclude Mother from filing a new action, in another circuit court, to modify custody. That is what Mother did, by means of filing her “Complaint for Modification of Child Custody Order” in the Circuit Court for Calvert County. Venue was proper in that court and, just as in StruzinsM, venue no longer was proper in the original court that had issued the custody order now sought to be modified. It was legal error, therefore, for the court to transfer the case to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, either on the basis of improper venue, or forum inconveniens.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nodeen v. Sigurdsson

3. “1. Does Maryland Rule’2-327(c) prohibit the change of venue for convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice from the Circuit Court for Calvert County, where Mother resides, to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, where the case had previously been tried and custody granted the Custodians, albeit that the Custodians; Mother, and minor child no longer reside in Anne Arundel County? 2. If a party, Mother in this proceeding, may file a complaint to modify custody in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, the original site of the custodial order, does Maryland Rule 2-327(c) preclude the Court from transferring the complaint for modification of the custody order from Calvert County to the court of original decision, Anne Arundel County, where no party nor the minor child resides in the county to which the case is transferred?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nodeen v. Sigurdsson