82 Md. App. 128 - Johnson v. Domingues’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. There has been a significant change of circumstance since the Judgment of Absolute Divorce was filed on December 23, 1986. At that time and until the summer of 1988, both parties lived in Montgomery County. The [mother] has now moved to San Antonio, Texas. 2. The [mother’s] husband interferes with the relationship between the minor children and the [father], 3. The [mother] does nothing to further the relationship between the [father] and the parties’ children. 4. The [mother] and her husband are making every effort to establish their family to the exclusion of the [father]. 5. The [mother] has refused to communicate with the [father] even when such communication is reasonably necessary to protect the children’s well-being, for example, in regard to her remarriage. 6. Any change in economic circumstances has been due to voluntary decisions on the [mother’s] part. 7. There has been no significant increase in the [mother’s] expenses for the children except insofar as she has attributed costs of housing, furniture, swimming pool, and her husband’s car to the children.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Domingues v. Johnson

2. “The custody of children should not be disturbed unless there is some strong reason affecting the welfare of the child. To justify a change in custody, a change in conditions must have occurred which affects the welfare of the child and not of the parents. The reason for this rule is that the stability provided by the continuation of a successful relationship with a parent who has been in day to day contact with a child generally far outweighs any alleged advantage which might accrue to the child as a result of a custodial change. In short, when all goes well with the children, stability, not change, is in their best interests. [Footnotes omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 87 Md. App. 389 - Shunk v. Walker