Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 665 S.E.2d 39 - In Re CR

In Re CR’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Sanchez v. Walker County Department of Family & Children Services · In the Interest of H. S. · In the Interest of E. M. · In the Interest of J. L. · In the Interest of M. K.

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

  1. “either intentional or unintentional misconduct resulting in the abuse or neglect of the child or by what is tantamount to physical or mental incapability to care for the child.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “and that some of the furniture hit the walls causing damage. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court adjudicated C.H. delinquent for committing the act of criminal damage to property in the second degree. 1. C.H. first argues that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the petition. He contends that because the adjudicatory hearing was not held within ten days of the filing of the petition pursuant to OCGA § 15-11-39, the court should have dismissed the petition without prejudice. OCGA § 15-11-39(a) provides that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. In Re Ch
  3. “On appeal from a juvenile court's order finding deprivation, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the juvenile court's judgment to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found by clear and convincing evidence that the child was deprived. In doing so, we neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses; instead, we defer to the trial court's factfinding and affirm unless the appellate standard is not met. [1]”
    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.