178 So. 3d 280 - State ex rel. A.R.’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Block v. Rutherford · Lehman Ex Rel. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency · State in Interest of JM · State ex rel. G.J.L. · 831 So. 2d 918 - State Ex Rel. LB v. GBB
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Imprisonment is not an excuse to escape parental obligations. State ex rel. C.M.O. , 04-1780 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/13/05) , 901 So.2d 1168 . Incarceration is not a defense to failure to support or maintain contact with one's children in a termination of parental rights case, particularly because incarceration results from one's actions. State ex rel. M.H. v. K.W.H. , 40,332 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/23/05), 912 So.2d 88 . 1168. State in the Interest of O.L.R. , 13-616, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 125 So.3d 569 , 573. This court opined that incarceration of a parent is the result of his/her own "conduct and actions" and may not be used "as an excuse for ... failing to substantially comply with [a] case plan." Id.”
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.