Holder v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc. (2006), Silverman v. Silverman (2003)
31 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 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 Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Pegram v. Herdrich
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]fter receiving notice of a wrongful removal ... the judicial ... authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained [the United States] shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice [by the state court].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘[T]he existence of a substantial doubt as to whether the state proceedings will resolve the federal action precludes the granting of a [Colorado River] stay.’ Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 12 F.3d 908, 913 (9th Cir.1993). [EJxact parallelism between the state and federal proceedings is not required; Nakash v. Marciano, 882 F.2d 1411, 1416 ; however, any substantial doubt is sufficient to preclude a stay: When a district court decides to dismiss or stay under Colorado River , it presumably concludes that the parallel state-court litigation will be an adequate vehicle for the complete and prompt resolution of the issues between the parties. If there is any substantial doubt as to this, it would be a serious abuse of discretion to grant the stay or dismissal at all ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t would [] undermine the very scheme created by the Hague Convention and ICARA to hold that a Hague Convention claim is barred [in federal district court] by a state court custody determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.