CB Ex Rel. RRM v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 670 (§ 470 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 671 (§ 471 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 673 (§ 473 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra · Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick · Phillips v. A-Best Products Co. · P.J.S. v. Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission · Wertz v. Chapman Township
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it [was] apparent that Congress contemplated agency custody as a proper measure of eligibility for adoption assistance,” and further that”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[A] child shall not be considered a child with special needs unless— (1) the State has determined that the child cannot or should not be returned to the home of his parents; and (2) the State had first determined (A) that there exists with respect to the child a specific factor or condition (such as his ethnic background, age, or membership in a minority or sibling group, or the presence of factors such as medical conditions or physical, mental, or emotional handicaps) because of which it is reasonable to conclude that such child cannot be placed with adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance under this section ... and (B) that, except where it would be against the best interests of the child because of such factors as the existence of significant emotional ties with prospective adoptive parents while in the care of such parents as a foster child, a reasonable, but unsuccessful, effort has been made to place the child with appropriate adoptive parents without providing adoption assistance under this section....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“federal subsidies will be available where the need is greatest i.e., to children who are the most difficult to place in adoptive homes. It was entirely reasonable for the [State legislature] to conclude that those children actually involved in the state foster care system, and who also have designated special needs, are the most difficult to place. It was equally as reasonable for the [State legislature] to conclude that private adoption agencies placing children are less likely to face a shortage of prospective parents ready, willing and financially able to adopt children, including special needs children. Nothing in the federal Act or its legislative history suggests that it was intended to require states to provide assistance to facilitate adoptions in the latter situation....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.