In Re Joseph N.’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Clark v. O'Malley (2013), 216 Md. App. 58 - In Re JOY D. (2014)
26 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 Lloyd v. Board of Supervisors of Elections · Coburn v. Coburn · In Re Yve S. · State v. Ware · In Re Samone H.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““if the public interest clearly will be hurt if the question is not immediately decided, if the matter involved is likely to recur frequently, and its recurrence will involve a relationship between government and its citizens, or a duty of government, and upon any recurrence, the same difficulty which prevented the appeal at hand from being heard in time is likely again to prevent a decision, then the Court may find justification for deciding the issues raised by a question which has become moot, particularly if all these factors concur with sufficient weight.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(i) Determine the child’s permanency plan, which, to the extent consistent with the best interests of the child, may be, in descending order of priority: 1. Reunification with the parent or guardian; 2. Placement with a relative for: A. Adoption; or B. Custody and guardianship under § 3-819.2 of this subtitle; 3. Adoption by a nonrelative; 4. Custody and guardianship by a nonrelative under § 3-819.2 of this subtitle; or 5. Another planned permanent living arrangement. ...”
1 later decision 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.