495 F. Supp. 2d 635 - Abbott v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although Ms. Abbott’s removal of [the parties’ son] violated and frustrated the Chilean court’s order, so too would the removal of a child from a country in which any parent with rights of access resided. Mr. Abbott’s right of access, however enhanced and protected by the ne exeat order, is simply not sufficient to create rights of custody that warrant the greater protection intended under the Hague Convention. This Court in no way condones Ms. Abbott’s action .... [The child’s] residence in the United States obviously interferes with Mr. Abbott’s visitation rights, as established by the Chilean court. However, the Hague Convention explicitly creates a different set of remedies for those parents whose rights of access are frustrated by the custodial parent’s removal of a child”

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

2. “The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where— a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person ..., either jointly or alone, 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, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention. The rights of custody mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.”

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

3. “The opinions of courts in other signatory states to the Hague Convention are also “entitled to considerable weight.” Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 , 404, 105 S.Ct. 1338 , 84 L.Ed.2d 289 (1985). As outlined in Gonzalez and Croll, however, the cases from other signatory states addressing the rights conferred on a parent by a ne exeat order are “few, scattered, [and] conflicting” and thus do not guide this Court in its consideration of the issue.”

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