Pierce v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(c) A child custody determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the provisions of this section only if— “(1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State; and “(2) one of the following conditions is met: “(A) such State (i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State; “(B)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subpara-graph (A), and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of such State assume jurisdiction because (I) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with such State other than mere physical presence in such State, and (II) there is available in such State substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; “(C) the child is physically present in such State and (i) the child has been abandoned, or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse; “(D)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subpara-graph (A), (B), (C), or (E), or another State has declined to exerci”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Quenzer v. Quenzer

2. ““This Court is not persuaded by respondent’s contention that during the time a child is present in a state as a result of acts in violation of an existing custody decree, calculation of the six month period needed to establish ‘home state’ jurisdiction should be tolled. Cf. Freeman v. Freeman (Ky. 1977), 547 S.W.2d 437 . Neither the language nor the legislative history of the ‘home state’ definitional subsection support such a conclusion. See Commissioner’s Note, 9 U.L.A. 123 (master ed. 1979).” Pierce, 197 Mont, at 28 , f.n. 2, 640 P.2d at 904 , f.n. 2.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re the Marriage of Lance

3. ““(f) A court of a State may modify a determination of the custody of the same child made by a court of another state, if— “(1) it has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination; and “(2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Quenzer v. Quenzer