Miller v. Mathias’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 32 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) Grounds for jurisdiction—Except as otherwise provided in § 9.5-204 [governing temporary emergency jurisdiction] of this subtitle, a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (1) this State is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State; (2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under item (1) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under § 9.5-207 or § 9.5-208 of this subtitle, and: (i) the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and (ii) substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships; (3) all courts having jurisdiction under item (1) or (2) of this subsection have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under § 9.5-207 or § 9.5-208 of this subtitle; or (4) no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 230 Md. App. 37 - Cabrera v. Mercado

2. “(a) Action if this State is inconvenient forum.—(1) A court of this State that has jurisdiction under this title to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. (2) The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or request of another court. (b) Factors in determination.—(1) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this State shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. (2) For the purpose under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including: (i) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; (ii) the length of time the child has resided outside this State; (iii) the distance between the court in this State and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction; (iv) the relative financial circumstances of the parties; (v) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction; (vi) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child; (vii) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiou”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 230 Md. App. 37 - Cabrera v. Mercado

3. ““In statutory interpretation, our primary goal is always ‘to discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by a particular provision, be it statutory, constitutional or part of the Rules.’ Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157, 172 , 935 A.2d 699, 708 (2007); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Seay, 388 Md. 341, 352 , 879 A.2d 1049, 1055 (2005). See also Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Kelly, 397 Md. 399, 419-20 , 918 A.2d 470, 482 (2007). We begin our analysis by first looking to the normal, plain meaning of the language of the statute, reading the statute as a whole to ensure that ‘no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.’ Barbre, 402 Md. at 172 , 935 A.2d at 708 ; Kelly, 397 Md. at 420 , 918 A.2d at 482 . See also Kane v. Bd. of Appeals of Prince George’s County, 390 Md. 145, 167 , 887 A.2d 1060, 1073 (2005). If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute’s provisions and our analysis ends. Barbre, 402 Md. at 173 , 935 A.2d at 708-09 ; Kelly, 397 Md. at 419 , 918 A.2d at 482 ; City of Frederick v. Pickett, 392 Md. 411, 427 , 897 A.2d 228, 237 (2006); Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604-05 , 861 A.2d 78, 81 (2004).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 212 Md. App. 177 - Edgewood Management Corp. v. Jackson