In re E.G.M.’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (§ 2 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 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) · 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (§ 102 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1919 (§ 109 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1921 (§ 111 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1922 (§ 112 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield · Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians · Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico · 153 N.C. App. 25 - Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper · In Re CM
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'is in the nature of a conclusion of law that must be supported by adequate findings of fact.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A trial court may cease reunification efforts upon making a finding that further efforts 'would be futile or would be inconsistent with the juvenile's health, safety, and need for a safe, permanent home within a reasonable period of time.' " In re C.M., 183 N.C.App. 207 , 214, 644 S.E.2d 588 , 594 (2007) (quoting N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-507(b)(1) (2005) ). Though characterized by statute as a finding, "the determination that grounds exist to cease reunification efforts under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7B-507(b)(1) is, in [substance], a conclusion of law that must be supported by adequate findings of fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he question of the district court's jurisdiction under the ICWA cannot be resolved based on the evidence of record, we must remand the cause for a determination of subject matter jurisdiction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.