Weigle v. Devon T.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably 83 Cal. App. 4th 460 - Desiree F. v. Daniel F. (2000), In Re Interest of CW (1992)
67 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (§ 3 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (§ 4 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (§ 101 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Ogilvie · 6 Cal. 3d 920 - Nestle v. City of Santa Monica · 28 Cal. 3d 908 - Department of Social Services v. Ronald P. · Insurance Co. of North America v. Keene Corp. · In re M.E.M. Youth in Need of Care
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the absence of good cause to the contrary.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“the tribe cannot reasonably delay its request for transfer until after the child’s adoptive family has been found. We therefore hold that the 16-month delay between the permanency planning hearing ... and the tribe’s first expression of intent to intervene ... was sufficient to establish “good cause” under the Act and the guidelines for the court to deny the transfer petition.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[ Section 1911(b) ] is intended to permit a State court to apply a modified doctrine of forum non conveniens , in appropriate cases, to insure that the rights of the child as an Indian, the Indian parents or custodian, and the tribe are fully protected.”
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.