2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 7 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 Keast.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In re Keast Anchor | green | “a family court's review of the superintendent's decision to withhold consent to adopt a state ward is limited to determining whether the adoption petitioner has established clear and convincing evidence that the mci superintendent's withholding of consent was arbitrary and capri…” | 4 |
| 2 | In re ASF | green | “if there exist good reasons why consent should be granted and good reasons why consent should be withheld, it cannot be said that the representative acted arbitrarily and capriciously in withholding that consent even though another individual . . . might have decided the matter …” | 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.