Furnes v. Reeves’s Empirical Analysis
362 F.3d 702 · 2004
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably Abbott v. Abbott (2010), 134 S. Ct. 1224 - Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez (2014)
12 federal appellate · 4 district · 9 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. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 42 U.S.C. § 11607
Relies on Russello v. United States · United States v. Gonzales · Air France v. Saks · Young v. United States · Friedrich v. Friedrich
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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“'rights of custody' 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[.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is crucial to note that the violation of a single custody right suffices to make removal of a child wrongful. That is, a parent need not have “custody” of the child to be entitled to return of his child under the Convention; rather, he need only have one right of custody. Further, he need not have a sole or even primary right of custody.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hanley v. Roy · In Re Jjl-P.
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.