Hild v. Hild’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 130 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 136 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Since the mother is the natural custodian of the young and immature, custody is ordinarily awarded to her, at least temporarily, in legal contests between parents when other things are equal, even when the father is without fault, provided the mother is a fit and proper person to have custody.””

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robinson v. Robinson · Boswell v. Boswell

2. “Maryland Rule 886 (applicable to this Court) and, in identical language, Rule 1086 (applicable to the Court of Special Appeals) provide the standard of review of actions tried without a jury. 11 In such actions, the appellate courts of this State “review the case upon both the law and the evidence, but the judgment of the lower court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Rule 886 & 1086. The “clearly erroneous” concept is no newcomer to Maryland procedure: The predecessor of Rule 886 (adopted effective January 1, 1957 as Rule 886 a), General Rules of Practice and Procedure, Part Three, III, Rule 9 c (effective September 1, 1944), contained the same scope of review embodied in the present rule; moreover, prior to the standard’s codification as a rule, it was the time-honored practice on appeals to this Court in equity actions to give great weight to the chancellor’s findings of fact. And we have heretofore noted that these rules in essence merely conformed the scope of review in nonjury actions at law to the scope of review we had always applied in equity appeals. Nothing in Rule 886 indicates that it does not apply to all cases tried without a jury, and we have explicitly held that the rule applies when we review nonjury criminal causes (under Rule 772), nonjury defective delinquency cases, child support awards, and child custody cases. Hild ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 131 Md. App. 151 - Viamonte v. Viamonte · In Re Yve S.

3. ““. . .modern courts invariably hold that the best interests and welfare of the child should be primarily considered in making an award of custody.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 124 Md. App. 288 - Schaefer v. Cusack · 14 Md. App. 190 - Kirstukas v. Kirstukas