White White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 district · 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The requirement that a state’s plan be “reasonably in accord with recommended standards of national organizations,” is no more specific than section 671(a)(15)’s “reasonable efforts” requirement. Furthermore, the AACWA provides no “statutory guidance” to clarify the meaning of the requirements of 671(a)(10). Lastly, section 671(a)(10) is' enforceable through the same alternative enforcement mechanism provided for section 671(a)(15). As the Supreme Court noted in Súter, “[t]he Secretary [of Health and Human Services] has the authority to reduce or eliminate payments to a State on finding that the State’s plan no longer complies with § 671(a) or that ‘there is a substantial failure’ in the administration of a plan such that the State is not complying with its own plan.” 503 U.S. at 360 , 112 S.Ct. at 1368 . Suter thus forecloses the argument that section 671(a)(10) of the AACWA provides the source for an enforceable right through section 1983. 17”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. K. Et al. V. NH Dept. Of HHS · Carson P. ex rel Foreman v. Heineman

2. “[T]he defense of qualified immunity is often asserted in the most difficult of cases. Yet it is precisely for the hard case that the immunity exists. The availability of immunity cannot be judged solely by tragedies that later occur or by mistakes that later come to light. Knowing what we know now, no child would have been placed in the care of the Bonners. But now is not then, and few mortals stand unscathed by hindsight. The question under qualified immunity is thus whether fallible and imprescient human beings acted reasonably on the law as it stood and on the facts as they were known at the time at the time the action was taken. On this record, we are unable to find that the standard of objective reasonableness applied to the actions of public officials has been transgressed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 108 F. Supp. 2d 1214 - Bailey v. Pacheco · 377 F. Supp. 2d 1051 - Johnson Ex Rel. Estate of Cano v. Holmes

3. “In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part [ 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.], it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which ... (15) provides that— (A) in determining reasonable efforts to be made with respect to a child, as described in this paragraph, and in making such reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern; (B) except as provided in subparagraph (D), reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify families — (i) prior to the placement of a child in foster care, to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home; and (ii) to make it possible for a child to safely return to the child's home. 42 U.S.C. § 671 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. L.J. v. Baltimore City Department of Social Services