Miller v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 1998
2 district · 21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on May v. Anderson · People of State of New York Halvey v. Halvey · Zouck v. Zouck · Ross v. Pick · Shenton v. Abbott
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`A proceeding to determine custody of a minor child partakes of the nature of an action in rem, the res, or the subject matter, being the child's status or his legal relationship to another. If the court does not have jurisdiction of the children it does not have jurisdiction of the subject matter to determine the right to custody....'"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As to the merits, the conclusion of the lower court that it had jurisdiction over the children because it had jurisdiction over the parents was erroneous and must be reversed. Rather, since the children were neither present nor domiciled in Maryland, it is clear that the court was without jurisdiction to either pass an order concerning the right of the ^ather to visit and communicate with the children or to find the mother in contempt for failing to comply therewith. “In Zouck v. Zouck, 204 Md. 285 , 104 A. 2d 573 (1954) and Naylor v. Naylor, 217 Md. 615 , 143 A. 2d 604 (1958), we recognized the ‘domicile’ rule set forth in the Restatement, Conflict of Laws, § 117, to the effect that a state court has jurisdiction to determine custody of a child only if the domicile of the child is within the state. See also Berlin v. Berlin, 239 Md. 52 , 210 A. 2d 380 (1965). As was pointed out in Zouck , at p. 302: ‘The term jurisdiction imports not only power over the parties to the action but the right to adjudicate as to the subject matter in a given case. In matters of custody, jurisdiction of the person who seeks custody is not enough. There must be jurisdiction over the one of whom custody is sought for the court to have jurisdiction of the subject matter.’ [Italics ours.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the general rule is that in the absence of a decree of separation or divorce the domicile of a wife is the same as that of the husband”); Hawks v. Goitschall, 241 Md. 147, 152 , 215 A.2d 745, 748 (1966) (wife’s intent regarding her domicile”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blount v. Boston
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.