§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE ISAIAH W.

Respondent’s Answer Brief on the Merits

45 Cited authorities

  1. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.

    505 U.S. 504 (1992)   Cited 2,402 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an express warranty was not a "requirement ... imposed under State law" because the obligation was imposed by the warrantor

  2. Miss. Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield

    490 U.S. 30 (1989)   Cited 1,633 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Indian Tribe had exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, even though the children were born off the reservation, because the children were “domiciled” on the reservation for purposes of the ICWA

  3. Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council

    530 U.S. 363 (2000)   Cited 983 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions

  4. English v. General Electric Co.

    496 U.S. 72 (1990)   Cited 1,315 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a tort arising from whistleblower retaliation at a nuclear facility was insufficiently related to radiological safety aspects in the facility's operation

  5. Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Labs

    471 U.S. 707 (1985)   Cited 1,191 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding local health ordinance not preempted because "the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily, and historically, a matter of local concern"

  6. Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp.

    331 U.S. 218 (1947)   Cited 2,165 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the clear statement rule may be satisfied where "the Act of Congress ... touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject."

  7. Hines v. Davidowitz

    312 U.S. 52 (1941)   Cited 2,184 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

  8. In re Meranda P.

    56 Cal.App.4th 1143 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 445 times
    Finding that mother waived her claims of inadequate representation by failing to petition for extraordinary writ review of the order setting the section 366.26 hearing

  9. In re S.B

    46 Cal.4th 529 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 309 times
    Holding order to search for adoptive family under § 366.26, subd. (c) and associated findings reviewable on appeal

  10. Dwayne P. v. Superior Court

    103 Cal.App.4th 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 370 times
    Concluding that the "minimal showing" required to trigger notice under the ICWA is merely evidence "suggest[ing]" the minor "may" be an Indian child

  11. Section 1901 - Congressional findings

    25 U.S.C. § 1901   Cited 4,757 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “an alarmingly high percentage of [Indian] children are placed in non-Indian . . . adoptive homes”

  12. Section 1912 - Pending court proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1912   Cited 3,116 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting foster care placement unless a State presents evidence from "qualified expert witnesses ... that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child"

  13. Section 1903 - Definitions

    25 U.S.C. § 1903   Cited 2,833 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "Indian" as encompassing only members of federally recognized tribes

  14. Section 1902 - Congressional declaration of policy

    25 U.S.C. § 1902   Cited 1,361 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the importance of culture when placing Indian children in foster care

  15. Section 1914 - Petition to court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate action upon showing of certain violations

    25 U.S.C. § 1914   Cited 686 times
    Granting parents and Indian custodians alike the right to petition a court to invalidate child custody proceedings in violation of ICWA

  16. Section 11

    Cal. Const. art. VI § 11   Cited 304 times
    Authorizing the taking of such evidence

  17. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or

  18. Rule 5.481 - Inquiry and notice

    Cal. R. 5.481   Cited 1,485 times

    (a) Inquiry The court, court-connected investigator, and party seeking a foster-care placement, guardianship, conservatorship, custody placement under Family Code section 3041, declaration freeing a child from the custody or control of one or both parents, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoption have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child is or may be an Indian child in all proceedings identified in rule 5.480. The court, court-connected investigator

  19. Rule 8.406 - Time to appeal

    Cal. R. 8.406   Cited 254 times

    (a)Normal time (1) Except as provided in (2) and (3), a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed. (A) In matters heard by a referee not acting as a temporary judge, a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the referee's order becomes final under rule 5.540(c). (B) When an application for rehearing of an order of a referee not acting as a temporary judge is denied under rule 5.542, a notice of appeal from

  20. Rule 8.66 - Tolling or extending time because of public emergency

    Cal. R. 8.66   Cited 27 times

    (a)Emergency tolling or extensions of time If made necessary by the occurrence or danger of an earthquake, fire, public health crisis, or other public emergency, or by the destruction of or danger to a building housing a reviewing court, the Chair of the Judicial Council, notwithstanding any other rule in this title, may: (1) Toll for up to 30 days or extend by no more than 30 days any time periods specified by these rules; or (2) Authorize specified courts to toll for up to 30 days any or extend