Rye v. Weasel’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably In Re Adoption of Kenten H. (2007), CRYSTAL R. v. Superior Court of Santa Cruz County (1997)
26 state decisions
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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (§ 2 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (§ 101 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978)
Relies on Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield · In Re the Adoption of Baby Boy L. · 118 Wash. 2d 561 - In Re Adoption of Crews · J.Q. v. D.R.L. · Matter of TS
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.
“failure of the legislature to change a known judicial inteipretation of a statute [is] extremely persuasive evidence of the true legislative intent. There is a strong implication that the legislature agrees with a prior court interpretation when it does not amend the statute interpreted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a) The Legislature finds and declares the following: [H] (1) There is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children, and the State of California has an interest in protecting Indian children who are members of, or are eligible for membership in, an Indian tribe. [ถ] (2) It is in the interest of an Indian child that the child's membership in the child's Indian tribe and connection to the tribal community be encouraged and protected. [ถ] (b) In all Indian custody proceedings, as defined in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act ( 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), the court shall consider all of the findings contained in subdivision (a), strive to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families, comply with the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, and seek to protect the best interest of the child. [H] (c) A determination by an Indian tribe that an unmarried person who is under the age of 18 years, is either (1) a member of an Indian tribe or (2) eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and a biological child of a member of an Indian tribe shall constitute a significant political affiliation with the tribe and shall require the application of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act to the proceedings.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“because the express purpose of Congress was to prevent the culture shock and underlying emotional trauma inherent in taking children from an Indian environment and placing them in a non-Indian environment, the [Act] applies only in those situations where Indian children are being removed from an existing Indian family.”
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.