Cantor v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis
442 F.3d 196 · 2006
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11602 · 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 42 U.S.C. § 11606
Relies on Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company · Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co. · Breard v. Greene · Barnes in Her Official Capacity As Member of the Board of Police Commissioners of Kansas City Missouri et al. v. Gorman · White v. Burdick
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An application to make arrangements for organizing or securing the effective exercise of rights of access may be presented to the Central Authorities of the Contracting States in the same way as an application for the return of a child. The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the fulfillment of conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights. The Central Authorities, either directly or through intermediaries, may initiate or assist in the institution of proceedings with a view to organizing or protecting these rights and securing respect for the conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he inquiry called for under section 11603(e) is very limited — the court need only decide whether "the petitioner has such rights” of access. 42 U.S.C.A. § 11603 (e)(1)(B)____ This limited inquiry does not require federal courts to plumb the depths of family law; in fact, it requires no greater degree of entanglement with family law than does the determination of whether a child has been removed in violation of existing custody rights. Such a limited inquiry is consistent with Convention policy goals that the status quo be returned rapidly, without regard to the underlying merits, and enforced until a court of competent jurisdiction revisits the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin“Upon ordering the return of a child or issuing an order concerning rights of access under this Convention, the judicial or administrative authorities may, where appropriate, direct the person who removed or retained the child, or who prevented the exercise of rights of access, to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the applicant, including travel expenses, any costs incurred or payments made for locating the child, the costs of legal representation of the applicant, and those of returning the child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin
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.