Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 SO2D 287 - Ex Parte Lee

Ex Parte Lee’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
4
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2004

1 district · 7 state decisions

80198319902000decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1738

Relies on Marriage of Settle · Evans v. Insurance Co. of North America · 416 So. 2d 1034 - Flannery v. Stephenson · Pitts v. Sutter · 396 So. 2d 1069 - Wyatt v. Falhsing

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

  1. “it is in the best interest of the child that a court of such State assume jurisdiction because (I) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant have a significant connection with such State other than mere physical presence in such State, and (II) there is available in such State substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section [that that court has jurisdiction under its own law] continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody determination."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.