Robert v. Tesson’s Empirical Analysis
507 F.3d 981 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Simcox v. Simcox (2007), Larbie v. Larbie (2012)
12 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Air France v. Saks · Whitney v. Robertson · Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States · Howard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · Friedrich v. Friedrich
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a) it is a breach of the rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal of 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 agreement having legal effect under the law of that state.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jenkins v. Jenkins · Moreno v. Zank“'meaningful connections with the people and places' in a country.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“change in geography and the passage of time” may establish a .new habitual residence for the child. Defendant submits that these factors support a finding that the child is now settled in the United States. The Court notes, however, that Robert pertains to how a child may establish a new habitual residence, which is part of plaintiff’s prima facie case, rather than to how defendant may satisfy the statutory”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.