30 F. Supp. 2d 857 - Bromley v. Bromley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[u]p to this point this analysis has fo-cussed [sic] on judicial and administrative remedies for removal or retention of children in breach of custody rights. “Access rights,” which are synonymous with “visitation rights,” are also protected by the Convention, but to a lesser extent than custody rights. While the Convention preamble and Article 1(b) articulate the Convention objective of ensuring that rights of access under the law of one state are respected in other Contracting States, the remedies for breach of access rights are those enumerated in Article 21....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cantor v. Cohen · 262 F. Supp. 2d 687 - Wiggill v. Janicki

2. “Mr. DIXON. The language of the House version of the bill grants original jurisdiction to the courts of the States. At the same time, it states that Federal courts shall “have jurisdiction to the extent authorized by chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code.” In practice, all actions arising under the convention involve interpretation of the Hague Convention Treaty and therefore could be removed to the Federal courts. Therefore, petitions for return under the convention could be heard in either State or Federal courts. My amendment Fas the same result by simply granting concurrent original jurisdiction. The reason that the House constructed this approach was out of concern that these cases would embroil the Federal courts in deciding child custody matters. I must say that I understand this concern, and that none of the proponents of this bill, or my amendment, want to see the Federal courts to be involved in deciding the underlying custody disputes. This bill has been carefully drafted to avoid this possibility. Section 2(b)(4) provides that “the convention and this act empower courts in the United States to determine only rights under the convention and not the merits of any underlying child custody claims.” This language limits consideration to only those issues specifically contained in the Hague Convention, and not to child custody in general. The reason I believe it is important to amend the House language regarding jurisdiction is that the complexity of the House langu”

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

3. “An application to make arrangements for organizing or, securing the effective exercise of rights of access may be presented to the Central Authorities of the Contracting States in the same way as an application for the return of a child. The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfillment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights. The Central Authorities, either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organizing or protecting these rights and securing respect for the conditions to which the exercise of these rights may be subject.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 121 F. Supp. 2d 1118 - Teijeiro Fernandez v. Yeager