In Re CP’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (§ 2 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) · 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (§ 104 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on Matter of Montgomery · 127 N.C. App. 505 - Matter of Helms · 141 N.C. App. 475 - In Re Gleisner · 10 N.C. App. 545 - In Re Custody of Stancil · 174 N.C. App. 517 - In Re EC
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'The burden is on the party invoking [ICWA] to show that its provisions are applicable to the case at issue, through documentation or perhaps testimony from a tribe representative.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“the court should safeguard the parent's visitation rights by a provision in the order defining and establishing the time, place and conditions under which such visitation rights may be exercised.”
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.