33 Md. App. 333 - Ross v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2001
9 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 Dietrich v. Anderson · 12 Md. App. 1 - Sullivan v. Auslaender · Piotrowski v. State Ex Rel. Kowalek · Melton v. Connolly · McCabe v. McCabe
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We find no error in the fact that a trial judge continues his general education by reading, or that his reasoning is influenced by such education, or by his experiences during his lifetime. To expect either judge or juror to erase from memory all that he has read or experienced, not specifically related to the facts of the case is an absurdity so apparent as to deserve no rebuttal. Error would result when the reasoning was obviously distorted, but not when sound reasoning is influenced by prior experience or education. The soundness of the chancellor's reasoning here is apparent from the excerpts of his opinion. We do not find that he gave undue weight to that particular underpinning of his reasoning. Rather, we commend him both for recognizing and expressing that which helped him to decide.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e know what this child can do in the home of the Hoffmans. She is well-developed and healthy, and if we change the custody, we are not sure whether Mrs. Ross and her new husband and this child can interact meaningfully with her. What the relationship with the child would be with Mrs. Ross [is unknown] and the court feels, as Dr. Derivan feels, maybe we shouldn’t risk this at this time, (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ross v. Hoffman“Children are not chattels, and doctrines such as adverse possession, however semantically regaled, do not apply to children.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte CV
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.