In Re Samone H.’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Koshko v. Haining (2007), St. Joseph Medical Center, Inc. v. Cardiac Surgery Associates, P.A. (2006)
58 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 671 (§ 471 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Santosky v. Kramer · Stanley v. Illinois · Troxel v. Granville · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County North Carolina
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party may appeal from any of the following interlocutory orders entered by a circuit court in a civil case: (3) An order: (x) Depriving a parent, grandparent, or natural guardian of the care and custody of his child, or changing the terms of such an order....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Child in need of assistance" means a child who requires court intervention because: (1) The child has been abused, has been neglected, has a developmental disability, or has a mental disorder; and (2) The child’s parents, guardian, or custodian are unable or unwilling to give proper care and attention to the child and the child's needs.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"(1) In developing a permanency plan for a child in an out-of-home placement, the local department shall give primary consideration to the best interests of the child, including consideration of both in-State and out-of-state placements. The local department shall consider the following factors in determining the permanency plan that is in the best interests of the child: "(i) the child’s ability to be safe and healthy in the home of the child's parent; "(ii) the child’s attachment and emotional ties to the child's natural parents and siblings; "(iii) the child’s emotional attachment to the child’s current caregiver and the caregiver's family; "(iv) the length of time the child has resided with the current caregiver; "(v) the potential emotional, developmental, and educational harm to the child if moved from the child's current placement; and "(vi) the potential harm to the child by remaining in State custody for an excessive period of time. "(2) To the extent consistent with the best interests of the child in an out-of-home placement, the local department shall consider the following permanency plans, in descending order of priority: "(i) returning the child to the child's parent or guardian, unless the local department is the guardian; "(ii) placing the child with relatives to whom adoption, custody and guardianship, or care and custody, in descending order of priority, are planned to be granted; "(iii) adoption in the following descending order of priority: "1. by a curren”
2 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.