M.T. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (§ 102 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (§ 201 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on State Ex Rel. B.R. · T.L.W. v. Office of the Guardian Ad Litem · Manzanares v. Byington · N.D. v. State · 2002 UT App 219 - State v. Comer
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recognize that juvenile court judges have special training, experience, and interest in their field, as well as the opportunity to judge credibility firsthand; consequently, we review a juvenile court's decision to terminate parental rights deferentially and will not disturb the juvenile court's findings and conclusions unless the preponderance of the evidence clearly militates against the findings made or the court has otherwise abused its discretion.”
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.