Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 P3D 1073 - Johnson v. State

Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
3
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (§ 2 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (§ 102 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)

Relies on 70 Or. App. 10 - State Ex Rel. Juvenile Department v. Charles · 148 Mich. App. 682 - In Re Kreft · E. A. v. State, Division of Family & Youth Services · Carpenter v. Carpenter · KN v. State

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

  1. “requirement is a similar predicate, to be determined by the trial court, before the termination case may proceed. The state is required to make an affirmative showing,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[T]he juvenile court did not articulate a standard by which it made its findings; nor did it make a finding, supported by testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that active but unsuccessful efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family or that continued custody of the children by [their mother] Shannon was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage. * * * [W]e find that any error related to the juvenile court’s failure to specifically state the foregoing was harmless error in that the evidence would have supported these ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] findings. “In sum, we first find that there was clear and convincing evidence to support a finding that active efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of this family—which efforts included therapy, placement, case management, psychiatric and chemical dependency evaluations, visitation services, transportation assistance with visitation, parenting and domestic violence classes, and random urine analysis—and that such efforts were unsuccessful. Second, * * * the evidence adduced by the State at the dispositional hearing clearly and convincingly supports ... a finding of harm [if the children were returned to the custody of their mother, Shannon]. Shannon’s psychological evaluation indicated that Shannon had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, and her diagnoses included major depressive disorder, alcohol dependence, adjustment disorder with anxiety, and antisocial and depressive personalit”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “She was also asked if she knew who Rebecca Hull was. Mother testified that she knew Hull's job was to keep Indian families together. She denied that Hull worked closely with her. Mother stated that she asked Hull whether the tribe had any assistance for her, any money, so she could move out, and that Hull responded in the negative. She further stated that they did not offer her tribal housing. When asked if Hull would testify differently then would she be lying, Mother responded”
    1 later decision 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.