85 Md. App. 674 - In Re Devon T.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Under the initially prevailing philosophy that the State was acting in delinquency cases as parens patriae (sovereign parent of the country), the State was perceived to be not the retributive punisher of the child for its misdeeds but the paternalistic guardian of the child for its own best interests. Under such a regime, the moral responsibility or blameworthiness of the child was of no consequence. Morally responsible or not, the child was in apparent need of the State’s rehabilitative intervention and the delinquency adjudication was but the avenue for such intervention. Over the course of the century, however, buffeted by unanticipated urban deterioration and staggering case loads, the reforming vision of Judge Julian Mack and the other founders of the movement faded. Although continuing to stress rehabilitation over retribution more heavily than did the adult criminal courts, delinquency adjudications nonetheless took on, in practice if not in theory, many of the attributes of junior varsity criminal trials. The Supreme Court, in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), and In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), acknowledged this slow but inexorable transformation of the juvenile court apparatus into one with increasingly penal overtones. It ultimately guaranteed, therefore, a juvenile charged with delinquency most of the due process protections afforded an adult charged with crime.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Victor B.

2. “... the mixed mission of the school authority “is to protect not only the constitutional rights of the student who may be a drug pusher but equally, perhaps more importantly, to protect the health and welfare of the entire school community from the ravages of that drag pusher. The parents of those other students, entrusting their children to the public charge, are entitled to expect nothing less.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 124 Md. App. 604 - In Re Patrick Y.

3. “After several centuries of pondering the criminal capacity of children and experimenting with various cut-off ages, the Common Law settled upon its current resolution of the problem by late Tudor and early Stuart times. [9]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Md. App. 360 - Miles v. State