Citation network
Santosky Vs. Kramer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 24, 1982
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 745 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
U.S. 745 (1982) Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
and the countervailing governmental interest supporting use of the challenged procedure. Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
certiorari to consider petitioners' constitutional claim. 450 U.S. 993 (1981). II Last Term, in Lassiter v. DepartmentSearch
-
id. at 452 U. S. 59 -60 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). See also Little v. StreaterSearch
-
choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Quilloin v. WalcottSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Smith v. OrganizationSearch
-
Moore v. EastSearch
-
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
-
Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
specified in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
to determine whether a particular standard of proof in a particular proceeding satisfies due process. In Addington v. TexasSearch
-
U. S. 480 , 445 U. S. 491 (1980). See also Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
U.S. at 441 U. S. 425 , quoting Tippett v. MarylandSearch
-
F.2d 1153, 1166 (CA4 1971) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part), cert. dism'd sub nom. Murel v. BaltimoreSearch
-
U.S. at 441 U. S. 425 , 426. See, e.g., Addington v. TexasSearch
-
Chaunt v. UnitedSearch
-
Page 455 U. S. 757 Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 254 , 397 U. S. 262 -263 (1970), quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSearch
-
precious than any property Page 455 U. S. 759 right. 452 U.S. at 452 U. S. 27 , quoting Stanley v. IllinoisSearch
-
civil commitment, Addington v. TexasSearch
-
deportation, Woodby v. INSSearch
-
and denaturalization, Chaunt v. UnitedSearch
-
States, supra, and Schneiderman v. UnitedSearch
-
to favor use of error-reducing procedures. However substantial the foster parents' interests may be, cf. Smith v. OrganizationSearch
-
that the balance of private interests strongly favors heightened procedural protections. B Under Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding bears many of the indicia of a criminal trial. Cf. Lassiter v. DepartmentSearch
-
substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge. See Smith v. OrganizationSearch
-
error is sizable. Raising the standard of proof would have both practical and symbolic consequences. Cf. Addington v. TexasSearch
-
at the factfinding proceeding. Lassiter v. DepartmentSearch
-
parents can and will provide a normal home. Unlike a constitutional requirement of hearings, see, e.g., Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
and In re Rosenthal v. HartnettSearch
-
Ross v. FoodSearch
-
motive, absence of affection between parent and child, and failure of parental foresight and progress. Cf. Lassiter v. DepartmentSearch
-
Page 455 U. S. 770 is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Cf. Addington v. TexasSearch
-
or its equivalent. See Dale County Dept. of Pensions & Security v. RoblesSearch
-
Harper v. CaskinSearch
-
Torres v. VanSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Santosky v. KramerSearch
-
Lassiter v. DepartmentSearch
-
the Fourteenth Amendment. Quilloin v. WalcottSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial