Sidell v. Sidell’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738A · 28 U.S.C. § 1738B · 42 U.S.C. § 666 (§ 466 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Milliken v. Meyer · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To hold that “the proceeding” refers to the original dissolution action would confer perpetual jurisdiction over matters of custody to the courts of the state which granted the dissolution, regardless of whether the parties or child had any further connection with that state[,] a result that is contrary to the underlying purpose of the UCCJEA. . . . [W]e [therefore] must interpret “commencement of the proceeding” to mean the recent, post-divorce proceeding concerning the custody of the child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“virtually all of the states that have ruled on this issue have held that when the individual parties and child(ren) no longer reside in the issuing state,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dinan v. Dinan“that state nonetheless retains the authority to enforce its order.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dinan v. Dinan
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.