Moore v. Miley’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Davis v. Slater (2004), Melton v. State (2004)
60 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 Degren v. State · Tracey v. Tracey · Jones v. State · In re Victor B. · In Re Mark M.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[T]he keystone of Maryland's disposition of juvenile delinquents is that `the moral responsibility or blameworthiness of the child [is] of no consequence,' such that delinquency adjudication is seen as the opportunity for the State to provide needed rehabilitative intervention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · Thompson v. State“(1) To ensure that the Juvenile Justice System balances the following objectives for children who have committed delinquent acts:[ [1] ] (i) Public safety and the protection of the community; (ii) Accountability of the child to the victim and the community for offenses committed; and (iii) Competency and character development to assist children in becoming responsible and productive members of society; (2) To hold parents of children found to be delinquent responsible for the child's behavior and accountable to the victim and the community; (3) To hold parents of children found to be delinquent or in need of supervision responsible, where possible, for remedying the circumstances that required the court's intervention; (4) To provide for the care, protection, and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of this subtitle; and to provide for a program of treatment, training, and rehabilitation consistent with the child's best interests and the protection of the public interest; (5) To conserve and strengthen the child's family ties and to separate a child from his parents only when necessary for his welfare or in the interest of public safety; (6) If necessary to remove a child from his home, to secure for him custody, care, and discipline as nearly as possible equivalent to that which should have been given by his parents; (7) To provide to children in State care and custody: (i) A safe, humane, and caring environment; and (ii) Access ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. State“[e]ven when this Court has extended `criminal defendant' type rights to juveniles, the cases explain that the overall proceedings maintain their focus on the special goals of delinquency adjudication.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State
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.