37 Md. App. 191 - Paltrow v. Paltrow’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently December 2011
24 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 McCormick v. St. Francis De Sales Church · 31 Md. App. 99 - Community Realty Co. v. Siskos · 36 Md. App. 446 - Howard v. Gish · Millison v. Citizens National Bank · 31 Md. App. 350 - Doug-Dun Corp. v. Simms
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Except where the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child ... a court of this State shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this subtitle if at the time of filing the petition a proceeding concerning the custody of the child was pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this subtitle, unless the proceeding is stayed by'the court of the other state because this State is a more appropriate forum or for other reasons.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We think it plain from the statement of purposes and the other sections cited that an equity court in a, proceeding relating to child, custody has an affirmative duty to examine the question of the pendency of proceedings elsewhere in Maryland or in other jurisdictions and should do so of its own motion even if the issue is not raised by the parties them,selves. We also consider it not only proper but necessary for a court of this State to determine, as a preliminary matter, whether to exercise its jurisdiction where it becomes apparent that a proceeding concerning the custody of the child or children is pending in a court in another jurisdiction. This indeed is the mandate of the Act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) A court of this state which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: (1) This state (A) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (B) had been the child’s home state within six [6] months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this state; ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Clark
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.