Boswell v. Boswell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

87 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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e have ... made clear that the controlling factor, or guiding principle, in adoption and custody cases is not the natural parent’s interest in raising the child, but rather what best serves the interests of the child. We have said that in all cases where the interests of a child are in jeopardy the paramount consideration is what will best promote the child’s welfare, a consideration that is of “tran-scendant importance.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 141 Md. App. 570 - In Re Adoption/Guardianship No. T00032005 · 240 Md. App. 518 - In re: O.P.

2. “When an action has been tried without a jury, the appellate court will review the case on both the law and the evidence. It will not set aside the judgment of the trial court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, and will give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 131 Md. App. 151 - Viamonte v. Viamonte · 128 Md. App. 357 - Dunlap v. Fiorenza

3. “The Supreme Court has emphasized, however, that “rights of parenthood are [not] beyond limitation,” and that the “state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting a child’s welfare ....”. Thus, a parent’s right to direct his or her child’s upbringing is not absolute. Rather, Due Process analysis requires the delicate balancing of all of the competing interests involved in the litigation. In the context of most family law disputes over children, the State’s interest is to protect the child’s best interests as parens patriae — & derivation of the State’s interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizenry. The importance of those State interests that successfully override parental autonomy in raising children is determined by the nature of the individual liberty interests upon which the State laws or regulations impinge. A regulation or law significantly curtailing a fundamental right must undergo strict scrutiny — it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling public interest. Restrictions upon rights not deemed fundamental need only be rationally related to some purpose within the competency of the State. Finally, there are those restrictions upon rights deemed “substantial,” though not fundamental, that must undergo intermediate-level scrutiny — governmental interference is sanctioned only when the interference is supported by a substantial governmental interest. As noted above, the State’s interest in al”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Yve S.