State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “If the court finds that the allegations of a petition alleging a child to be deprived are supported by the evidence, and finds that it is in the best interests of the child and the public that the child be made a ward of the court, the court shall sustain the petition, and shall make an order of adjudication finding the child to be deprived and shall adjudge the child as a ward of the court.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re CT · State v. Ussery

2. “4) The State alleges that [C.T., C.T., and A.T.] are deprived children because they do not have proper parental care. Both the Respondent Mother and the Respondent Father have failed to provide the children with safe or adequate housing. At the time they were taken into custody, the home where the children were residing had no running water or electricity and the toilet was overflowing with feces and urine. The only adult in the home was intoxicated and was unsure of where each of the children was. There was no fresh food in the house. Upon questioning, the children stated that [they] had not eaten since lunch on the preceding day. Although the Respondent children were living in an unsafe and inadequate environment, the Respondent Mother was staying at a hotel at the time the children were taken into custody. The Respondent Father was aware that the Respondent Mother was staying at the hotel and that the Respondent children were residing in the unsafe environment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re CT

3. “. . . THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the factual allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the State's Petition are true and correct, but only with respect to the Respondent Mother. ... THE COURT THEN FINDS that the Respondent Juveniles, [C.T., C.T., and A.T.], are deprived children with respect to the Respondent Mother and they are hereby made wards of the court. THE COURT FURTHER FINDS that the Respondent Juveniles, [C.T., C.T., and A.T.], are not deprived children with respect to the Respondent Father. A DISPOSITIONAL HEARING is set for the 11th day of September 1998, at 10:00 a.m. THE COURT FINDS that the custody of [C.T., C.T., and A.T.] shall be placed with the Respondent Father pending the outcome of the Dispositional Hearing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re CT