In Re Michaela C.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2020 · most notably In re Thomas H. (2005), 986 So. 2d 1172 - JC v. State Department of Human Resources (2007)
1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
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 Grogan v. Garner · Santosky v. Kramer · Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental Retardation · In Re Scott S. · In Re Alexander D.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [court's] judgment on the issue of best interest is entitled to substantial deference because that court is able to directly evaluate the testimony of the witnesses.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[e]liminat[ing] the need for children to wait unreasonable periods of time for their parents to correct the conditions which prevent their return to the family”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the District Court had adopted long-term kinship or foster care as Michaela’s permanency plan, it would have been authorized to enter and periodically review orders designed to address actions by Michaela’s noncustodial relatives that impact upon her well-being. The utility of this authority, however, must be considered in light of the practical limits on the court’s ability to control familial relationships and behaviors. In view of the high level of family conflict demonstrated during the pendency of this case, the District Court was justified in concluding that its indefinite supervision of Michaela’s family relationships would have effectively placed Michaela “in limbo,” and would not have achieved the Act’s goals of certainty and stability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Thomas H.
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.