Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re B.C..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re B.C. Anchor | green | “the united states supreme court has stated that parents' interest in the care, custody, and control of their children 'is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this court.” | 7 |
| 2 | In re Mullen | green | “it is irrefutable that parents have fundamental constitutional rights free from government intervention in their decisions on the custody and caretaking of their children.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.