Thomason’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 3 state decisions

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

1. “[w]here a treating physician has clearly expressed his or her reasonable suspicion that life-threatening abuse is occurring in the home, the interest of the child (as shared by the state as parens patriae ) in being removed from that home setting to a safe and neutral environment outweighs the parents' private interest in familial integrity as a matter of law”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Siefert v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs · Gomes

2. “Our court has recognized the liberty interest which parents have in the care, custody, and management of their children.... However, we have at the same time indicated that this right is not absolute.... As we stated in [ Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 828 , 108 S.Ct. 97 , 98 L.Ed.2d 58 (1987)], "the liberty interest in familial relations is limited by the compelling governmental interest in the protection of minor children, particularly in circumstances where the protection is considered necessary as against the parents themselves." 810 F.2d at 1462 . Moreover, as the First Circuit has correctly noted, "[t]he right to family integrity clearly does not include a constitutional right to be free from child abuse investigations." Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1993). The need to continually subject the assertion of this abstract substantive due process right to a balancing test which weighs the interest of the parent against the interests of the child and the state makes the qualified immunity defense difficult to overcome. Moreover, the requirement that the right be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is particularly formidable.... Our court has not gone so far as to say that there are no "clearly established" substantive due process rights held by parents in the context of child abuse investigations. However, in Myers, we did recognize the problem of defining such rights. 810 F.2d at 1462-63 . More generally, t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hawley v. Nelson

3. “As we stated in Myers , “the liberty interest in familial relations is limited by the compelling governmental interest in the protection of minor children, particularly in circumstances where the protection is considered necessary as against the parents themselves.” 810 F.2d at 1462 . Moreover, as the First Circuit has correctly noted, “[t]he right to fami ly integrity clearly does not include a constitutional right to be free from child abuse investigations.” Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1993). The need to continually subject the assertion of this abstract substantive due process right to a balancing test which weighs the interest of the parent against the interests of the child and the state makes the qualified immunity defense difficult to overcome. Moreover, the requirement that the right be clearly established at the time of the alleged violation is particularly formidable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Omni Behavioral v. Steven Miller