Corey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “least restrictive means to protect the child”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McGann · 2004 OK CIV APP 65 - In Re TC

2. “The children are a year apart and they have been, since I think about the first two or three months of this case, have been placed together ... in the same foster home since, I believe, December of 2000. I'm going to order that they both be placed on the same verdict form, that the — and it will read that the rights of [Mother] should be terminated as to the children [T.C. and L.C.], or should not be terminated as to both children. And the reason for that is that their circumstances are so similarly situated. They are brother and sister. I don't feel like it would be in the children's best interest to be separated by a jury verdict, and that's happened before. And I think the case is similar and very similar, almost identical ... if the jury found to terminate, the basis for that would be just almost identical for both of these children. And I feel like the situation is not such that we need separate verdict forms. I think the finding for one would be a finding for the other. And I also do not want to take — well, I think that the evidence dictates that the jury form show both children terminate or not terminate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 OK CIV APP 65 - In Re TC

3. “issue as a matter of law. ¶ 7 Neither party directs us to, and we find, no authority precisely on point with the issue presented. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has made clear, however, that a parent's right in the continuity of the legal bond with the parent's child is both fundamental and constitutionally protected.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 OK CIV APP 65 - In Re TC