Fawcett v. McRoberts’s Empirical Analysis
326 F.3d 491 · 2003
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Abbott v. Abbott (2010), Chafin v. Chafin (2013)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · University of Texas v. Camenisch · Church of Scientology of California v. United States · Mills v. Green · Michigan v. Doran
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no law of physics would make it impossible for Ms. Fawcett to comply with an order by the district court that she return Travis to the United States. To the contrary, such orders are fully within the district court's power and are commonly issued by courts in the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re JG · Whiting v. Krassner““Article 3: The removal or the retention of the 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. “Article 5: For the purposes of this Convention— “a ‘rights of custody 5 shall include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence; “b ‘rights of access’ shall include the right to take a child for a limited period of time to a place other than the child’s habitual residence. “Article 12: Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 ... the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith.” Id., at 7, 9.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Abbott v. Abbott“became powerless to grant the relief requested by [the mother].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re JG
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.