Sumpter v. Sumpter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When sealing or limiting access to a case record, a trial judge must make findings about the interest sought to be protected from inspection, supported by specific findings. Md. Rule 16-1009(d)(2); see also Balt. Sun Co. v. Colbert, 323 Md. 290, 305 , 593 A.2d 224, 231 (1991) (citing In re Knight Publ’g Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir.1984) (“A court ruling on a motion to seal judicial records should articulate the interest sought to be protected by the seal, supported by specific findings.”)). When determining whether to preclude or limit inspection of a case record, as was the case here, the trial judge must consider “whether a special and compelling reason exists” to justify restricted access. Md. Rule 16-1009(d)(4)(A). The trial court’s final order that precludes or limits inspection of a case record “shall be as narrow as practicable in scope and duration to effectuate the interest sought to be protected by the order.” Md. Rule 16—1009(d)(3); see also Colbert, 323 Md. at 306 , 593 A.2d at 231 . Moreover, the trial court must state why alternatives to sealing or limiting access to the case record were rejected. Balt. Sun v. Thanos, 92 Md.App. 227, 246 , 607 A.2d 565, 574 (1992) (discussing requirements for sealing a pre-sentencing report in a first-degree murder case). The limited record before us does not illuminate sufficiently the full contours of the Circuit Court policy or rule, its origin, the balancing of the interests sought to be protected by it against competing”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 225 Md. App. 428 - In Re ADOPTION OF SCOTT W.V.

2. “(A) if the motion seeks to preclude or limit inspection of a case record that is otherwise subject to inspection under the Rules in this Chapter, whether a special and compelling reason exists to preclude or limit inspection of the particular case record; and (B) if the motion seeks to permit inspection of a case record that is otherwise not subject to inspection under the Rules in this Chapter, whether a special and compelling reason exists to permit inspection. (C) if the motion seeks to permit inspection of a case record that has been previously sealed by court order under subsection (d)(1)(A) of this Rule and the movant was not a party to the case when the order was entered, whether the order satisfies the standards set forth in subsections (d)(2), (3), and (4)(A) of this Rule. (5) Unless the time is extended by the court on motion of a party and for good cause, the court shall enter a final order within 30 days after a hearing was held or waived.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 225 Md. App. 581 - Immanuel v. Comptroller of the Treasury

3. “Did the Court of Special Appeals err in refusing to vacate and remand the case to the circuit court when the parties and the best interest attorney were not provided a copy of the custody investigation report in violation of constitutional due process?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sumpter v. Sumpter