Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 636 SE2D 117 - In Re KLH

In Re KLH’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on In re M. C. J. · 264 Ga. App. 475 - In Re KNC · In the Interest of H. D. T. · In the Interest of T. L. · 253 Ga. App. 678 - In the Interest of K. R. S.

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

  1. “[W]here there are unchallenged, valid allegations of deprivation and no evidence that the parents were engaged in any custody dispute prior to the instances of deprivation, we cannot say that the deprivation proceeding was a disguised custody matter. Accordingly, the juvenile court properly exercised its jurisdiction over the deprivation proceeding.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Dt
  2. “if a deprivation proceeding is actually a disguised custody matter, then it is outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the juvenile courts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “explicitly rejected the idea that we must regard any deprivation or termination action between parents as a prima facie custody dispute.”
    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.