Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 F. Supp. 2d 136 - Koc v. Koc

181 F. Supp. 2d 136 - Koc v. Koc’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603

Relies on Small v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Local 24, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Schoonover · Jirovec v. Wood · Friedrich v. Friedrich · United States v. Dure

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

  1. “(1) the age of the child; (2) the stability of the child’s residence in the new environment; (3) whether the child attends school or day care consistently; (4) whether the child attends church [or participates in other community or extracurricular school activities] regularly; (5) the respondent’s employment and financial stability; (6) whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area; and (7) the immigration status of the child and the respondent.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Lozano v. Alvarez · Aranda v. Serna
  2. “1) is in breach of the 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 2) 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.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. In the Interest of A.V.P.G. and C.C.P.G., Minor Children · Guimaraes v. Brann
  3. “[t]he fact that the Immigration Service may not be looking to deport them at this time does not, in any way, guarantee that that position will not change in the future or that [the mother or the child] will ultimately become legal permanent residents of this country.”); see also Casimiro v. Chavez, No. 06-1889, 2006 WL 2938713 , at (N.D.Ga. Oct. 13, 2006) (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Miltiadous v. Tetervak · 525 F. Supp. 2d 1182 - Mendoza v. Miranda

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.