Doe v. Mann’s Empirical Analysis
415 F.3d 1038 · 2005
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably In Re Esther (2011), A.D.T. v. State (2008)
3 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 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 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (§ 2 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Califano v. Sanders · Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. · Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“removing an Indian child from its parent or Indian custodian for temporary placement in a foster home or institution or the home of a guardian or conservator where the parent or Indian custodian cannot have the child returned upon demand, but where parental rights have not been terminated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[in] any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention. If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, such notice shall be given to the Secretary in like manner, who shall have fifteen days after receipt to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe. No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe or the Secretary: Provided, that the parent or Indian custodian or the tribe shall, upon request, be granted up to twenty additional days to prepare for such proceeding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any Indian tribe which became subject to State jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Act of August 15, 1953 ( 67 Stat. 588 ), as amended by Title IV of the Act of April 11, 1968 ( 82 Stat. 73 , 78) [Public Law 280], or pursuant to any other Federal law, may reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. Before any Indian tribe may reassume jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings, such tribe shall present to the Secretary for approval a petition to reassume such jurisdiction which includes a suitable plan to exercise such jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.