Sampson v. Sampson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 45 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f a person has valid custody rights to a child under the law of the country of the child’s habitual residence, that person cannot fail to “exercise” those custody rights under the Hague Convention shoyl of acts that constitute clear and unequivocal abandonment of the child. Once it determines that the parent exercised custody rights in any manner, the court should stop — completely avoiding the question whether the parent exercised the custody rights well or badly. These matters go to the merits of the custody dispute and are, therefore, beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee · 66 F. Supp. 2d 554 - Croll v. Croll

2. ““Where the trial court has made findings of fact and conclusions of law, the function of an appellate court is to determine whether the findings are supported by substantial competent evidence and whether the findings are sufficient to support die trial court’s conclusions of law. Substantial evidence is evidence which possesses bodi relevance and substance and which furnishes a substantial basis of fact from which the issues can reasonably be resolved. [Citation omitted.]” Sampson v. Sampson, 267 Kan. 175, 181 , 975 P.2d 1211 (1999).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 Kan. App. 2d 676 - CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc. v. E-Z Pay Used Cars, Inc. · 28 Kan. App. 2d 269 - Leavenworth Plaza Associates, L.P. v. L.A.G. Enterprises

3. ““ ‘a it 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 the removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. “ ‘The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph a above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.’ Convention, Art. 3, Fed. Reg. at 10498.” 267 Kan. at 178 .”

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