443 So. 2d 874 - Petit v. Holifield’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 473 So. 2d 174 - Bryant v. Cameron (1985), 582 So. 2d 414 - Vance v. Lincoln County DPW (1991)
37 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 435 So. 2d 697 - Kavanaugh v. Carraway · 414 So. 2d 417 - Ainsworth v. Natural Father · Miller v. Arrington · De La Oliva v. LOWNDES CTY. DEPT. OF PUB. WEL. · 211 So. 2d 871 - Ford v. Litton
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3) Grounds for termination of parental rights shall be based on one or more of the following factors: (a) A parent has deserted without means of identification or abandoned a child as defined in Section 97-5-1, or (b) A parent has made no contact with a child under the age of three (3) for six (6) months or a child three (3) years of age or older for a period of one (1) year; or (c) A parent has been responsible for a series of abusive incidents concerning one or more children; or (d) When the child has been in the care and custody of a licensed child caring agency or the Department of Human Services for at least one (1) year, that agency or the department has made diligent efforts to develop and implement a plan for return of the child to its parents, and: (i) The parent has failed to exercise reasonable available visitation with the child; or (ii) The parent, having agreed to a plan to effect placement of the child with the parent, fails to implement the plan so that the child caring agency is unable to return the child to said parent; or (e) The parent exhibits ongoing behavior which would make it impossible to return the child to the parent’s care and custody: (i) Because the parent has a diagnosable condition unlikely to change within a reasonable time such as alcohol or drug addiction, severe mental deficiencies or mental illness, or extreme physical incapacitation, which condition makes the parent unable to assume minimally, acceptable care of the child; or (ii) Becau”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“No infant shall be adopted to any person if either parent, after having been summoned, shall appear and object thereto before the making of a decree for adoption, unless it shall be made to appear to the court from evidence touching such matters that the parent so objecting had abandoned or deserted such infant or is mentally, or morally, or otherwise unfit to rear and train it, including but not limited to, being within any of the grounds requiring termination of parental rights as set forth in subsections (2) and (3)(a), (b), (d) or (e) of Section 93-15-103 in either of which cases the adoption may be decreed notwithstanding the objection of such parent, first considering the welfare of the child, or children, sought to be adopted.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. N.E. v. L. H. · M.L.W. v. K.W.C.“clear and convincing evidence that the objecting parent has either abandoned or deserted the child or is mentally or morally or otherwise unfit to rear or train the child.”
5 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.