Koshko v. Haining’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 10 district · 89 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Our precedent states clearly that the Maryland and Federal due process provisions have been read 'in pari materia.’ Pickett v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 365 Md. 67, 77 , 775 A.2d 1218, 1224 (2001); Pitsenberger v. Pitsenberger, 287 Md. 20, 27 , 410 A.2d 1052, 1056 (1980); Allied Am. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Comm’r of Motor Vehicles, 219 Md. 607, 615-16 , 150 A.2d 421, 426-27 (1959). This principle of reading the provisions in a like manner does not, however, reduce our analysis to a mere echo of the prevailing Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. Aero Motors, Inc. v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 274 Md. 567, 587 , 337 A.2d 685, 699 (1975) (‘Although Art. [24] of the Maryland Declaration of Rights has long ‘been equated’ with the 'due process' clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by judicial construction and application, the two provisions are not synonymous.’); see also William J. Brennan, Jr., Stale Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L.Rev. 489, 491 (1977) ('[S]tate courts cannot rest when they have afforded their citizens the full protections of the federal Constitution. State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law. The legal revolution which has brought federal law to the fore must not be allowed to inhibit the independent protective force of state law—for without it, the full realization of our liberties cannot be guaranteed.’). We hav”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Janice M. v. Margaret K. · 240 Md. App. 294 - Simms v. Maryland Dept. of Health

2. “[A]lthough there may be a difference in the degree of intrusion, it is not a difference of constitutional magnitude. Visitation, like custody, intrudes upon the fundamental right of parents to direct the “care, custody, and control” of their children. Through visitation decisions granting such privileges to third parties may tread more lightly into the protected grove of parental rights, they tread nonetheless .... [T]he weight of the footfalls on that territory is sufficiently direct and substantial as to require rigorous scrutiny.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 186 Md. App. 1 - Barrett v. Ayres · Janice M. v. Margaret K.

3. “A proceeding that may result in a court mandating that a parent’s children spend time with a third party, outside of the parent’s supervision and against the parent’s wishes, no matter how temporary or modifiable, necessitates stronger protections of the parental right. The importance of parental autonomy is too great and our reluctance to interfere with the private matters of the family too foreboding, whether it be in matters of custody or visitation, to allow parental decision-making to remain that vulnerable to frustration by third parties.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 186 Md. App. 1 - Barrett v. Ayres · Weldon v. Ballow