Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 A3D 136 - J.U. v. J.C.P.C.

J.U. v. J.C.P.C.’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
5
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))

Relies on Marcelina M.-G. v. Israel S. · State v. Seaver · 233 Cal. App. 4th 279 - People v. Israel O. · Petition of CEH · In re C.G.H.

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

  1. “assess [ing] the impact of the history of the parent's past conduct on the viability, i.e., the workability or practicability of a forced reunification of parent with minor, if the minor were to be returned to the home country.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a realistic look at the facts on the ground in the country of origin and a consideration of the entire history of the relationship between the minor and the parent in the foreign country.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “'too demanding a standard of ... abandonment.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.