Ruiz v. Tenorio’s Empirical Analysis
392 F.3d 1247 · 2004
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Pielage v. McConnell (2008), Holder v. Holder (2004)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Friedrich v. Friedrich · Feder v. Evans-Feder · Mozes v. Mozes · Friedrich v. Friedrich · Felix Blondin v. Marthe Dubois
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 66 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 ... 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 ... or would have been exercised but for the removal or retention.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Koch v. Koch · Pielage v. McConnell“a. to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and; b. to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Sometimes the circumstances surrounding the child’s stay are such that despite the lack of perfect consensus, [a court may find] the parents to have shared a settled mutual intent that the stay last indefinitely. When this is the case, we can reasonably infer a mutual abandonment of the child’s prior habitual residence. Other times, however, circumstances are such that, even though the exact length of the stay was left open to negotiation, the court is able to find no settled mutual intent from which such abandonment can be inferred.””
3 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.