Yang v. Tsui’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 7 district ·

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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In adopting the Hague Convention, the signatory nations sought to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence, as well as to secure protection for rights of access. That is, the primary purpose of the Hague Convention is to preserve the status quo and to deter parents from crossing international boundaries in search of a more sympathetic court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cantor v. Cohen · In re Application of Ariel Adan

2. “[i]n a situation where there is a state court custody proceeding and a petition is filed in federal court under the Hague Convention, but the Hague Convention has not been raised, or raised but not litigated, in the state court, the federal court has generally found that abstention is not appropriate. Where the Hague Convention Petition has been raised and litigated in the state court, abstention by the federal court has generally been found to be appropriate.”

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

3. “(e) Burdens of proof (1) A petitioner in an action brought under subsection (b) of this section shall establish by a preponderance of the evidence- (A) in the case of an action for the return of a child, that the child has been wrongfully removed or retained within the meaning of the Convention; and (B) in the case of an action for arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access, that the petitioner has such rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mendoza v. Silva