State v. Aimee M.’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
October 2002
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Vollmer v. Luety · 193 Wis. 2d 649 - In Re Custody of HSHK · 91 Wis. 2d 134 - Holland v. State · 101 Wis. 2d 441 - State v. Baldwin · 118 Wis. 2d 549 - Barstad v. Frazier
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The] [petitioner objects, as she did on her motion for postjudgment relief, to the form of the verdict on the grounds that: (1) using a single-question verdict form when two or more independent grounds for jurisdiction have been alleged does not require, as it must, that the jury to determine [sic] which factual allegations were proven and, therefore, the verdict did not ensure that a numerically sufficient five-sixths was reached on each jurisdictional ground challenged; and (2) the determination of whether or not a child is in need of protection or services is not an ultimate question of fact for the jury but, rather, a conclusion of law for the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care, or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.