In re No. 1140’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The[ ] provisions [of the Act and Rules] indicate that the dispositional process is directed toward the termination of a committal or other disposition when the juvenile court finds the child to be rehabilitated, and directed away from setting mandatory periods of commitment, which would be more in the nature of punishment. Read in light of the expressed purposes of the juvenile justice process, and the procedures created, the intent of [the Act] is clear. The juvenile court may not impose a minimum period of commitment on a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent. * * * Such a reading is also entirely consistent with the purposes [of the Act], which envision a release from commitment or probation when rehabilitation of the juvenile has been accomplished.[ 23 ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 179 Md. App. 512 - In Re Julianna B.

2. “an order ... vesting legal custody in an ... agency ... is effective for an indeterminate period of time.” See In re No. 1140, 39 Md.App. at 612-13 , 387 A.2d 315 . We said, id. at 613 , 387 A.2d 315 (emphasis in original): If indeterminate is read to mean, as the State would have it, only that no maximum period of commitment may be ordered, the use of”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 179 Md. App. 512 - In Re Julianna B.