Shealy v. Shealy’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.3d 1117 · 2002
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably De Silva v. Pitts (2007), Holder v. Holder (2004)
15 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Friedrich v. Friedrich · Feder v. Evans-Feder · Friedrich v. Friedrich · Miller v. Miller · Haim Shalit v. Cheryl Coppe Cheryl Gardner Shalit
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where—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 removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In an action pursuant to ICARA and the Hague Convention, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions regarding principles of domestic, foreign, and international law de novo .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Watts v. Watts · De Silva v. Pitts“(1) the child was habitually resident in a given state at the time of the removal or retention; (2) the removal or retention was in breach of petitioner's rights under the laws of that state; and (3) petitioner was exercising those rights at the time of removal or retention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Watts v. Watts
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.