Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 CONNAPP 463 - In re Antony B.

In re Antony B.’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
14
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

128 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably In re Savanna M. (1999), In re Sheila J. (2001)

128 state decisions — followed in 14 states

10401999200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)

Relies on Stanley v. Illinois · Wisconsin v. Yoder · Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · In re Juvenile Appeal (83-CD) · Juvenile Appeal v. Commissioner of Children & Youth Services

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

  1. “law does not require a useless and futile act.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]n weighing the interests of the child against the hardship imposed on the parent, the legislature may properly strike the balance at the point where the mental . . . deficiency, even though CT Page 1881 involving no fault, is so great as to render the parent incapable of measuring up to the child's needs as those are delineated in [§ 17a-112 (j)].”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[does] not [mean] that the ADA does not apply to the reunification services and programs that the department must [provide] to meet the parents' specialized needs.... [Section] 17a-112 requires the department to make reasonable efforts at reunification. This includes taking the parent's mental condition into consideration. A failure to provide adequate services because of the parent's mental condition would violate not only § 17a-112, but [also] the ADA ....”
    3 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.