Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 871 SW2D 674 - Nale v. Robertson

Nale v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
5
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably In Re Swanson (1999), In Re the Adoption of A.A.T. (2008)

32 state decisions

170199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Santosky v. Kramer · Stanley v. Illinois · Lehr v. Robertson · Quilloin v. Walcott · Caban v. Mohammed

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

  1. “there is a right of individual privacy guaranteed under and protected by the liberty clauses of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Parents ... have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children under both the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 , 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn.1993). However, this right is not absolute and the State may interfere with parental rights if there is a compelling State interest. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d at 579 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a fundamental liberty interest in the child”
    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.