57 Md. App. 522 - In Re Dan D.’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. ““Whether a restitution hearing is conducted as part of an adjudicatory or disposition proceeding or separately, as is also permitted, one thing is clear: there must appear in the record at the restitution hearing not only the judicial findings that are a prerequisite to liability, but sufficient evidence to support those findings. If the restitution hearing is conducted as part of or contemporaneously with the adjudicatory hearing, there is, of course, no need to have the same evidence introduced twice. So long as the parent being proceeded against has a full and fair opportunity to participate — to cross-examine witnesses, to challenge evidence, to present evidence on his own behalf — the evidence taken at that proceeding may and should be regarded as applicable not only with respect to the child’s adjudication, but also with respect to the issue of restitution. If it suffices to establish the statutory criteria for liability, no more is required. “The problem arises when the restitution hearing is conducted later, either as part of a disposition proceeding or separately. The underlying facts pertaining to the delinquent act, having already been established, are not normally relitigated in a disposition hearing. But as we made clear in Matter of Sorrell, supra, 20 Md.App. 179 , 315 A.2d 110 , and again in In Re Appeal No. 769, Term, 1974, 25 Md.App. 565 , 335 A.2d 204 , cert. den. 275 Md. 751 (1975), parental liability may not flow inevitably from a prior determination that ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Jose S. · 720 So. 2d 476 - In Interest of BD

2. “(a) The court may enter a judgment of restitution against the parent of a child, or the child in any case in which the court finds a child has committed a delinquent act and during the commission of that delinquent act has: (1) Stolen, damaged, or destroyed the property of another; (2) Inflicted personal injury on another requiring the injured person to incur medical, dental, hospital, or funeral expenses.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Herbert B.