Spaulding v. Spaulding’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 2016
15 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 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
Relies on Harris v. McRae · 110 Cal. App. 3d 884 - In Re Marriage of Hopson · Wheeler v. District Court in & for City & Co. of Denver · State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown · 22 Cal. 3d 923 - Miller v. Superior Court
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) A child custody determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the provisions of this section only if— (1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State; and (2) one of the following conditions is met. (A) such State (i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State; (B)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (a), and (ii) 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; (C) the child is physically present in such State and (i) the child has been abandoned, or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because he has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse; (D)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E), or another State has declined to exercise jurisd”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The PKPA essentially provides that any child custody determination made consistently with the provisions of the PKPA is required to be enforced according to its terms by the Courts of every other state and the authorities of a state are not permitted to modify a decree of another state except as provided in subsection (f) of 28 U.S.C. § 1788A.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“This principle, however, is narrow; foreign decrees are punitive only if a sister state changes or awards custody, without regard to the best interest of the child, solely to punish one parent for disregarding its authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Marquiss v. Marquiss
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.