Jo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 state decisions

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

1. “1. [We] [g]ive considerable deference to the trial court’s determination because it has the advantage to judge the demeanor and intelligence of the witnesses; 2. [We] [e]xamine the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee and resolve all conflicts in evidence for appellee; [and] 3. [We] [a]ssume as true the evidence in appellee’s favor, disregard entirely appellant’s evidence in conflict with appellee’s evidence, and give to appellee’s evidence every favorable inference that may fairly be drawn.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Interest of: DT and NT, Minor Children.<br /> ST v. State · KC v. State

2. “are at the heart of the permanency decision in this case. Accordingly, we will apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district court's decision. [¶ 11] In determining whether there was an abuse of discretion,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Interest of SO, a Minor Child: PM and JM v. State · In Re Re

3. “In looking at the track record in this case, the Court understands that [Appellant] claims for the last three months this [referring to the children's visitations with Appellant's parents] has worked out well, so why not leave it the way it is. The track record here indicates that that's not likely to continue. In fact, after today's hearing, I will suspect that it would begin again for her to undermine and disagree, and I heard the word "sabotage," or disrupt the stability and permanency for these children. So the Court finds it appropriate, or the court finds that the state has outlined [its] efforts for reunification, and they were exemplary. The Court finds that the state considered options of kinship placement or some kind of guardianship or termination, and it explained well [its] reasons for selecting the goal of termination; and the Court finds that to be appropriate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Re