Morrow v. Winslow’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.3d 1386 · 1996
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Phelps v. Hamilton (1997), Government Employees Insurance v. Dizol (1998)
25 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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. § 1902 (§ 3 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (§ 4 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (§ 101 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (§ 104 of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Younger v. Harris · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Sosna v. Iowa · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Family relations are a traditional area of state concern.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“the authority of the judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under State law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed, and the Indian child’s tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Yancey v. Thomas
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.