Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 MISC2D 300 - In re Felix C.

In re Felix C.’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
August 1992
most recently cited

4 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “However, one must also read into the definition the statutory statement of purpose "that a determination of custody and visitation is [to be] rendered in the State which can best decide the case in the interest of the child". There is eminent good reason for insisting on an enlightened and expansive construction of the definition of child custody determination. The rendering of a child custody determination constitutes one of the most delicate, challenging and ofttimes frustrating responsibilities exercised by a trial jurist.... The sine qua non of a child custody determination is that it must be based on the best interests of the child. Implicit in this precept is the necessity that the determination of best interests be made at a plenary hearing with both sides afforded an opportunity to present their case[s]. .... ... This requirement goes hand-in-hand with the best interests requirement because it is only in the course of a full and plenary hearing on the merits that a court can become cognizant of the individual needs of a child, and evaluate the various factors which determine best interests. .... The Puerto Rican custody decree was not based on the child's best interests, and therefore was not a "child custody determination" entitled to enforcement and recognition.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “under both the UCCJA and the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA). The father had obtained a divorce and custody of the parties' only child after the mother unilaterally removed the child to the state of New York. Although there were additional reasons for not recognizing and enforcing the Puerto Rican custody decree (the decree was obtained without actual notice and opportunity to be heard, the mother having been served by publication), the New York court noted that both the UCCJA and the PKPA speak in terms of sister-state recognition and enforcement of”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that a determination of custody and visitation is [to be] rendered in the State which can best decide the case in the interest of the child”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.