474 So. 2d 715 - Ex Parte Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 state decisions

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that statutes covering the same or similar subject matter should be construed in pari materia.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 547 So. 2d 905 - Hatcher v. State · 611 So. 2d 472 - State v. Thomas

2. ““[W]hen one parent seeks to terminate the other parent’s parental rights, a ‘finding of dependency1 is not required. As stated above, if a ‘finding of dependency were a requisite element of proof, thfe following illogical result could arise: The petitioning parent, who is adequately caring for the child, would have to prove that he or she is not providing adequate- Care for the child and, therefore, could -then be estopped from bringing such an action. We hold, therefore, that, when one parent seeks to terminate the other parent’s parental rights, a ‘finding of dependency’ is not required, and the trial court should determine whether the petitioner has met the statutory burden of proof and whether that termination is in the child’s best interest, in light of the surrounding circumstances. “The two-prong test that a court must apply in a parental rights termination case brought by a custodial parent consists of the following: First, the court must find that there are grounds for the termination of parental rights, including, but not limited to, those specifically set forth in § 26-18-7 [now repealed]. Second, after the court has found that there exist grounds to order the termination of parental rights, the court must inquire as to whether all viable alternatives to a termination of parental rights have been considered.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex parte L.J.

3. ““Section 12-15-30, Code of Alabama 1975, describes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as follows: “(a) The juvenile court shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction of the following proceedings, which are governed by this chapter: “(1) Proceedings in which a child is alleged to be delinquent, dependent or in need of supervision_” [[Image here]] “Code 1975, § 12-15-30. It is evident then, that the Juvenile Court of Jefferson County had jurisdiction to entertain Johnson’s petition to have her child declared dependent- The issue is whether Johnson was the proper party to file the petition.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. S.D. v. State