Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 P3D 1276 - Latham v. State

Latham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 2024

10 state decisions

40200720102020decided

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

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Santosky v. Kramer · Daniels v. Williams · Barber v. Page · 32 Cal. 4th 588 - In Re Jesusa

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

  1. “An incarcerated parent does not have an absolute constitutional right to be present at a termination hearing, if through the exercise of reasonable diligence his presence cannot be secured within a reasonable time period and alternate effective procedures are available to protect his or her fundamental right to 'meaningful access' and an opportunity to defend.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “First, a court must consider the private interest that will be affected by the state's action; second, the court must consider the risk of erroneous deprivation of the interest posed by the procedures used and the probable value, if any, that additional or substitute procedures would provide; and third, the court must consider the governmental interest at stake.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In determining whether an individual has been denied procedural due process we engage in a two-step inquiry, asking whether the individual possessed a protected interest to which due process protection applies and if so, whether the individual was afforded an appropriate level of process.”
    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.