Roberts v. Lakin’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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 9. Age, citizenship and residence requirements for Senators and Delegates. "A person is eligible to serve as a Senator or Delegate, who on the date of his election (1) is a citizen of the State of Maryland, (2) has resided therein for at least one year preceding that date, and (3) if the district which he has been chosen to represent has been established for at least six months prior to the date of his election, has resided in that district for six months next preceding that date. "If the district which the person has been chosen to represent has been established less than six months prior to the date of his election, then in addition to (1) and (2) above, he shall have resided in the district for as long as it has been established. "A person is eligible to serve as a Senator, if he has attained the age of twenty-five years, or as a Delegate, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years, on the date of his election.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stevenson v. Steele · Blount v. Boston

2. “: Domicile has been defined as the place with which an individual has a settled connection for legal purposes and the place where a person has his true, fixed, permanent home, habitation and principal establishment, without any present intention of removing therefrom, and to which place he has, whenever he is absent, the intention of returning. Id. quoting Roberts v. Lakin, 340 Md. 147 , 153 , 665 A.2d 1024 (1995). The primary factor in determining an individual's domicile is thus the individual's intent. Id. In other words,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. (2004) · Oglesby v. Williams

3. ““As earlier indicated, ‘[ojne’s domicile, generally, is that place where he intends it to be.’ Dorf v. Skolnik, 280 Md. 101, 116 , 371 A.2d 1094, 1102 (1977); Bainum v. Kalen, 272 Md. 490, 497 , 325 A.2d 392, 396 (1974). Under circumstances where one intends his domicile to be in a particular area, and takes the appropriate steps to evidence a domicile in that area, his motive for doing so is ordinarily not pertinent. One may intend to be domiciled in a particular area because of perceived tax advantages, because of the climate, because he wants to run for public office from that area, or for countless other ‘self-serving1 reasons. The fact that the motivation is ‘self-serving’ in no way undercuts the intent shown by various objective factors. Establishing or maintaining a domicile in a specific area in order to run for public office from that area frequently occurs; it is entirely legitimate.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blount v. Boston