52 Wash. App. 37 - In Re Colnar’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2008 · most notably In Re MCP (1989), In re M.C.P. (1989)
38 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) · 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (§ 4 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (§ 101 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (§ 102 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on 60 Or. App. 546 - Application of Angus · 11 Kan. App. 2d 531 - In Re HD
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(10)(a) Whenever the court or the petitioning party in a proceeding under this chapter knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the petitioning party shall promptly provide notice to the child’s parent or Indian custodian and to the agent designated by the child’s Indian tribe to receive such notices. Notice shall be by certified mail with return receipt requested. If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, notice shall be given to the secretary of the interior in the manner described in 25 C.F.R. § 23.11 . If the child may be a member of more than one tribe, the petitioning party shall send notice to all tribes the petitioner has reason to know may be affiliated with the child. (b) The notice shall: (i) Contain a statement notifying the parent or custodian and the tribe of the pending proceeding; and (ii) notify the tribe of the tribe’s right to intervene and/or request that the case be transferred to tribal court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Circumstances under which a state court has reason to believe a child involved in a child custody proceeding is an Indian include but are not limited to the following: (i) Any party to the case, Indian tribe, Indian organization or public or private agency informs the court that the child is an Indian child. (ii) Any public or state-licensed agency involved in child protection services or family support has discovered information which suggests that the child is an Indian child. (iii) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the court reason to believe he or she is an Indian child. (iv) The residence or the domicile of the child, his or her biological parents, or the Indian custodian is known by the court to be or is shown to be a predominantly Indian community. (v) An officer of the court involved in the proceedings has acknowledged that the child may be an Indian child.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings,”
2 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.