SORAM’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate ·

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]pproximately half of the States that include endangerment-type offenses in their definitions of "child abuse" ... do not specify the degree of threat required.... [W]e will not attempt to analyze whether the myriad State formulations of endangerment-type child abuse offenses come within the ambit of "child abuse" under [the INA]. Rather, we find that a State-by-State analysis is appropriate to determine whether the risk of harm required by the endangerment-type language in any given State statute is sufficient to bring an offense within the definition of "child abuse" under the Act.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions · Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions

2. “... do not specify the degree of threat required.... [W]e will not attempt to analyze whether the myriad State formulations of endangerment-type child abuse offenses come within the ambit of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Martinez-Cedillo v. Sessions · Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions

3. “A person commits child abuse if such person causes an injury to a child’s life or health, or permits a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of injury to the child’s life or health, or engages in a continued pattern of conduct that results in malnourishment, lack of proper medical care, cruel punishment, mistreatment, or an accumulation of injuries that ultimately results in the death of a child or serious bodily injury to a child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ibarra v. Holder