99 Md. App. 521 - Malik v. Malik’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Telnikoff v. Matusevitch (1997), 108 Md. App. 284 - Hosain v. Malik (1996)
42 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
Relies on Domingues v. Johnson · 480 So. 2d 1120 - Carr v. Carr · Middleton v. Middleton · Highfield Water Co. v. Washington County Sanitary District · 64 Md. App. 154 - Olson v. Olson
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On remand, the circuit court must first determine whether the Pakistani court applied law that is in substantial conformity with Maryland law. That determination requires the presentation of evidence.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““If the Pakistani court’s custody order was founded on principles of law that are repugnant to Maryland public policy, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County must exercise its jurisdiction. If the Pakistani court’s determination was made without giving primary consideration to the best interest of the child, the circuit court must resolve this dispute by applying that standard. If the Pakistani court’s determination was made on the basis of a rule of law or evidence or procedure so contrary to Maryland public policy as to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial, the circuit court must exercise its jurisdiction and resolve this dispute by applying Maryland law.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The “home state” provision of the U.C.C.J.A. was introduced to provide protection for a parent who remains in the home state after the other parent has taken the child away. In enacting that provision, the drafters of the act were attempting to mitigate the advantage enjoyed by the party who has physical possession of the child. Jeff Atkinson, Modern Child Custody Practice § 3.12, 192 (1986). The Commissioners’ Note to the U.C.C.J.A § 3 states: The main objective [of the six month home state window] is to protect a parent who has been left by his spouse taking the child along. The provision makes clear that the stay at home parent ... may start proceedings in his own state. Nothing in the U.C.C.J.A. provides that there can only be one “home state.” In this case, there are two. Appellant sued for custody in Pakistan shortly after appellee vacated the marital home. While the Pakistani court had jurisdiction to do so, it conducted a full trial on the merits before awarding custody to appellant. Pakistan was the child’s original “home state.” Maryland has become the child’s “home state” only because appellee, in disobedience of the Pakistani court, hid the child from appellant for over two years.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.