In Re Jason W.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2019
2 federal appellate · 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 Hornbeck v. Somerset County Board of Education · Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Fitzpatrick · Facon v. State · Takahashi v. Fish & Game Commission · ARIZONA NEWSPAPERS ASS'N. v. Superior Court
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he view of the juvenile court that merely writing on the wall, without regard to the content of the writing, constitutes a violation of § 26-101(a) `because the administration would have to take care of the investigation [and] cleaning' is clearly untenable. Depending on the extent to which an unauthorized writing actually damages or defaces public school property, that conduct may or may not fall within the ambit of § 26-102(e)(3)part of former Art. 27, § 577Bwhich makes it unlawful for a person wilfully to damage or deface any public school building, but Jason was not charged with that offense. The juvenile court's reading of § 26-101(a) would make criminal any unauthorized conduct that requires even a minimal response by a school official, and that would, indeed, raise the specter of a young child being haled into juvenile court and found delinquent for throwing a temper tantrum in school. As we have so often said, statutes must be given a reasonable interpretation, not one that is illogical, incompatible with common sense, or that would reach an absurd result that could not possibly have been intended by the Legislature. See Whiting-Turner v. Fitzpatrick, 366 Md. 295, 302 , 783 A.2d 667, 671 (2001); Facon v. State, 375 Md. 435, 446 , 825 A.2d 1096, 1102 (2003). "A typical public school deals on a daily basis with hundredsperhaps thousandsof pupils in varying age ranges and with a variety of needs, problems, and abilities, scores of teachers, also with varying need”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] person may not willfully disturb or otherwise willfully prevent the orderly conduct of the activities, administration, or classes of any institution of elementary, secondary, or higher education.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.