State v. Marek’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1153 · 18 U.S.C. § 1162 · 25 U.S.C. § 1321
Relies on California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians · Bryan v. Itasca County · State v. Toohill · State v. Reinke · State v. Tinno
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Idaho does not merely `regulate' — rather, it prohibits and seeks to eliminate — injury to children. Indeed, the same can be said of the Child Protective Act and the Parent-Child Relationship Termination Act. These statutes do not simply `regulate' the abuse, neglect or abandonment of children; rather, they seek to prevent and to ameliorate the tragic effects of such conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doe v. Mann“Dependent, neglected and abused children.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doe v. Mann
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.