Rethorst v. Rethorst’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 40 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In actual result the decree of the Circuit Court denied full faith and credit to the California decree on the subject of custody, apparently on the ground that Maryland, and not California, had jurisdiction over the children. This view of the law, if supported by the facts, is in accord with the rule set forth in the Restatement, Conflict, of Laws, § 32, which was recognized and substantially quoted in Ross v. Pick, 199 Md. 341, 348 , 86 A. 2d 463 , in which this Court said: ‘It is true that a minor child’s domicil, in the case of divorce of its parents, is that of the parent to whose custody it has been legally given; and if there has been no legal fixing of custody, its domicil is that of the parent with whom it lives-, but if it lives with neither, it retains the father’s domicil.’ (Italics supplied.) We believe that this rule of the Restatement represents the generally accepted view on this subject. Beale, Conflict of Laws, Vol. 1, § 32.1, points out that under the older law, if the parents were living apart against the will of the father, but were not divorced, and the child was with the mother, the child's domicil continued to be that of the father. He goes on to say that under ‘the correct modern view’, if the parents are living apart because of the father’s fault, a child living with the mother takes her domicil. “The California court took the view that both it and the Maryland court had jurisdiction to make a custody order, and that the order of whichever court migh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 Md. App. 161 - Sami v. Sami

2. ““By the informal agreement between the parties which subsisted for two and a half years the order to show cause was superseded and allowed to lapse. The wife made no effort to bring her case to trial and was content to accept the $200 [$100 less than the award] a month paid under the agreement. Laches and acquiescence would seem to bar her attempt to revive a claim based on the 1952 order * * Id. at 15 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eckard v. Gardner

3. ““[t]he general rule which now seems well established is that the fact that the husband is in contempt will not prevent his litigating his substantial rights in connection with which the contempt was committed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Maryland Deposit Insurance Fund Corp. v. Billman