Anderson v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
181 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human Services (2001), J.T. v. Arkansas Department of Human Services (1997)
181 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 Harper v. Caskin · Bush v. Dietz · Union National Bank v. Barnhart · Cobbins v. State · Ussery v. State
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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That it is in the best interest of the juvenile, including consideration of the following factors: (A) The likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is granted, and (B) The potential harm caused by continuing contact with the parent, parents, or putative parent; (2) Of one (1) or more of the following grounds: (B) The juvenile has lived outside the home of the parent for a period of twelve (12) months, and the parent has willfhlly failed to provide significant material support in accordance with the parent’s means or to maintain meaningful contact with the juvenile. To find willful failure to maintain meaningful contact, it must be shown that the parent was not prevented from visiting or having contact with the juvenile by the juvenile’s custodian or any other person, taking into consideration the distance of the juvenile’s placement from the parent’s home. Material support consists of either financial contributions or food, shelter, clothing, or other necessities where such contribution has been requested by the juvenile’s custodian or ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. It is not necessary that the twelve-month period referenced in this subdivision (b)(2)(B) immediately precede the fifing of the petition for termination of parental rights, or that it be for twelve (12) consecutive months; (H)(i) The parent is sentenced in a criminal proceeding for a period of time which would constitute a substantial period of the juvenile’s fife”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(3) An order forever terminating parental rights shall be based upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence: (A) That it is in the best interest of the juvenile, including consideration of the following factors: (i) The likelihood that the juvenile will be adopted if the termination petition is granted; and (ii) The potential harm, specifically addressing the effect on the health and safety of the child, caused by continuing contact with the parent, parents, or putative parent or parents; (B) Of one (1) or more of the following grounds: (i)(a) That a juvenile has been adjudicated by the court to be dependent-neglected and has continued out of the home for twelve (12) months and, despite a meaningful effort by the [Department [of Human Services] to rehabilitate the home and correct the conditions which caused removal, those conditions have not been remedied by the parent. * * * * (ix)(«) The parent is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, including the juvenile division of circuit court, to: (3) Have subjected the child to aggravated circumstances; [or] (4) Have had his [or her] parental rights involuntarily terminated as to a sibling of the child[.]”
4 later decisions 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.