Slaven v. Engstrom’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (§ 101 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Mathews v. Eldridge
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under Minnesota law, child protection matters are tried before the courts of Minnesota. Minn.Stat. § 260C.101, subd. 1 (“The juvenile court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerning any child who is alleged to be in need of protection or services.... ”). Inherent in judicial authority is the authority of the court to set its own schedule. See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 , 254, 57 S.Ct. 163 , 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort....”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Slaven v. Engstrom“Minnesota procedures regarding emergency protective care of children and other applicable hearing statutes and court rules, as applied in their circumstances, violated their constitutional right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they never “received an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner,” among other procedural legal and factual infirmities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Slaven v. Engstrom“I know we discussed this at length in chambers[,] and the Court was very clear that you didn’t want us to be trying the facts in front of you here today. But I have got to note that the petition itself brings doubt into what actually occurred here, and they contradict each other.... I am sure the Court is going to [make] a prima facie finding in the petition, but there clearly is some question about what happened here....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Slaven v. Engstrom
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.