Lops v. Lops’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 927 · 1998
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Felix Blondin v. Marthe Dubois (2001), Holder v. Holder (2002)
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 42 U.S.C. § 11607 · 43 U.S.C. § 666
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) [the retention of the child] is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and (b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a court is required to order return of a child who has been wrongfully removed unless the respondent shows that the petition for return of the child was filed more than one year from the date of the wrongful removal or retention. Even if the petition has been filed more than one year after the abduction, a court is required-to order return unless the respondent also shows that the child has become settled in his or her new environment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and (b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.”
2 later decisions 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.