Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 Mich. 289 - In re Williams

In re Williams’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (§ 2 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (§ 3 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (§ 102 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1913 (§ 103 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)

Relies on Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission · In re Sanders · 189 Mich. App. 6 - In Re Kiogima · In re England · Mandy Kay Hensch v. Nicholas Allen Mysak

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

  1. “For example: (1) the state must give notice of the pending proceeding to the Indian tribe; (2) before removal or to continue removal, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that active efforts were made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, that the active efforts were unsuccessful, and that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child; (3) when seeking termination, the state must demonstrate that active efforts were made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that the efforts were unsuccessful; and (4) any termination of parental rights must be supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and by the testimony of at least one qualified expert who knows about the child-rearing practices of the Indian child's tribe.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(3) A party seeking a termination of parental rights to an Indian child under state law must demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that the active efforts were unsuccessful. (4) No termination of parental rights may be ordered in a proceeding described in this section without a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of at least 1 qualified expert witness as described in section 17, that the continued custody of the Indian child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the Indian child. [ 3 ] [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Any Indian child who is the subject of an action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under state law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody an Indian child was removed, and the Indian child's tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate the action upon a showing that the action violated any provision of sections 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29 of this chapter. [Emphasis added.]”
    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.